Brief facts out of which present revision petition arises are that respondent/defendant No.2 Akbar Ali was owner of an agricultural land measuring 40 Kanals, 8 Marlas in Village Thathi Usman, District Kasur. He sold an area of 29 Kanals and 13 Marlas vide registered sale deed, dated 21-9- 1987 (Exh.P.3) in favour of respondent/defendant No.1 for consideration of Rs.70,000., The mutation on the basis of aforesaid sale deed, could not be sanctioned due to some reasons. In the meantime, Wali Muhammad, father of Abdul Khaliq, the petitioner/plaintiff purchased the area of 16 Kanals from respondent/defendant No.2 which had already been purchased by respondent/defendant No.1 as is evident from Mutation No.859 dated 19-9-1995 (Exh.P.1) Mst.
Ghafooran Bibi also purchased 16 Kanals land from respondent/defendant No.2 which had already been sold earlier to respondent/defendant No. 1 as is evident from Mutation No. 944, dated 18-3- 1993 (Exh.P.10). Respondent/defendant No. 1 got Mutation No.853 entered on 26-1-1993 on the basis of sale deed dated 21-9-1987 but the same was cancelled by the Revenue Officer on the ground that vendor respondent/defendant No.2 was left with no land having sold to Wali Muhammad, father of Abdul Khaliq, petitioner/plaintiff and Mst. Ghafooran Bibi. Respondent/defendant No.1 filed revision petition before the competent authority under the provision of Punjab Land Revenue Act, which was allowed and consequently, the Mutation No.973 was sanctioned on the basis of aforesaid sale deed (Exh.P.5). The nutshell of the said mutation is that mutation in favour of Mst.
Ghafooran Bibi and Wali Muhammad, father of Abdul Khaliq petitioner/plaintiff, was cancelled vide order dated 6-4-1995. The father of the petitioner vendee died and his son Abdul Khaliq, petitioner/plaintiff secured the said suit land from his father through Mutation No.859. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a Civil Suit No. 115/1 of 1995 before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Kasur.
The contents of the plaint reveal that order of cancellation of his mutation and attesting of Mutation No.973 by way of review, are illegal, void, ineffective and inoperative qua his rights. Mst.
Ghafooran Bibi also instituted a civil suit No. 153 of 1991 on the said ground. The contents of the plaint of Mst. Ghafooran Bibi further reveal that Mutation on the basis of sale deed in favour of respondent/defendant No. 1 was not sanctioned as vendor had not sold his entire land and the vendee was not owner of the land in question in the village and the sale was hit by 115, M. L. R. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court. The respondents filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether the Suit No.115 of 1995 is liable to be dismissed in view of Objection No. 1 of the written statement preferred by defendant No. 1 of this suit? OPD-1
(ii) Whether the Suit No. 115 of 1995 has been inefficiently valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD-1 (i.e) Whether the Suit No. 115 of 1995 is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiff of Suit No. 115 of 1995 has not come into the Court with clean hands? OPD- 4 to 7
(v) Whether the plaintiff of Suit No. 115 of 1995 has no cause of action or locus standi to file this suit' against defendants Nos.4 to 7? OPD-4 to 7
(vi) Whether the sale deed dated 21-9-1987 from defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No. 1 of this Suit No. 115 of 1995 is illegal void, inoperative upon the rights ok me plaintiff? OPP
(vii) Whether the plaintiff of Suit No. 115 of 1995 is entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP
(viii) Whether plaintiff of Suit No.153 has no cause of action against defendant No. 1 of suit? OPD-1
(ix) Whether Suit No.153 has been ineffectively valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction'? OPD
(x) Whether the Suit No.153 is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(xi) Whether the Suit No.153 has been preferred against defendants Nos.4 to 7 with ulterior motive, hence liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.? OPD-4 to 7
(xii) Whether the sale deed, dated 21-9-1987 is illegal, void, inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff of Suit No. 153? OPD
(xiii) Whether the plaintiff of Suit No. 153 is entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP
(xiv) Relief.
The learned trial Court dismissed both the suits vide judgment and decree dated 6-11-2001. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, who also dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 8-5-2002. Hence, the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application before the learned trial Court to summon the Revenue Officials as Court--witnesses which was accepted vide order dated 27-8-1996.The case was finally decided after 6 years but the aforesaid Revenue Officials were not summoned and their statements were not recorded. He further submits that both the suits were consolidated and the petitioner was not allowed to cross---examine Mst. Ghafooran Bibi, plaintiff in the second suit. He further submits that respondent No.2 did not enter appearance before the learned trial Court, therefore, the contents of plaint to the extent of ownership of respondent/defendant No.2 were proved but this fact was not considered by both the Courts below. He further submits that both the Courts below erred in law to decide the case against the petitioner.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is admitted fact that the petitioner alleged that the land in question was purchased by father of the petitioner from respondent/defendant No.2 through oral sale and mutation was sanctioned.
It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of Roznamcha, the petitioner's claim the land in question which was neither signed by any of the parties nor the same was recorded by any of the Revenue Officer. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of the facts. It is also admitted fact that respondent/defendant No. 1 purchased the land in question from respondent No.2 through registered sale deed. Respondent No.1 had produced documentary evidence before the learned trial Court. Both the Courts below accepted the documentary evidence and rejected the oral evidence on the well known principle that the documentary evidence is precedent over the oral evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that main document i.e. Roznamcha as mentioned above, is not admissible in the evidence for the reasons that it is not a document signed by the parties nor the same was recorded by any of the Revenue Authority. In this view of the matter, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the said document. The findings of both the Courts below are in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mehrban v. Hamid Khan 1985 CLC 1780. It is also settled principle of law that registered sale deed must be given due weight unless the same is rebutted by cogent evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner failed to rebut the contents of registered sale deed, therefore, the findings of both the Courts below are in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mires Muhammad Sharif's case 1993 SCM R 462. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "It is by now well-settled that registered document has sanctity attached to it and stronger evidence is required to cast aspersion on its genuineness. There is no evidence worth the name on the tile to show that the sale deed was forged and fictitious. "
The First Appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence as is evident from para. No. 17 of the impugned judgment. It is settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of the facts while exercising the jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Unless and until the same is the result of misreading and non-reading of record or in violation of principle laid down by the superior Courts. The Honourable Privy Council has laid down the principle for interference in the concurrent findings in revision petition in N. S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras PLD 1949 PC 26. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters; (a) that the order of subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
5. The aforesaid judgment of the Privy Council was considered and approved by this Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mahmood 1985 CLC 657. It is pertinent to mention here that judgment of this Court was upheld by the superior Courts. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring the case within the parameter prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment and also failed to point out any piece of evidence which was the result of misreading and non-reading of the record.