' Hazoor Bukhsh had filed a . Declaratory suit alleging that registered sale-deed No,7 10/1 was executed by him in favor of Mst. Manzoor Mai on 30-9-1989 in respect of five Marlas of land without any consideration subject to the condition that after marriage with Nadir Hussain (son of the executant) she would live with him as his wife during her entire life; that after marriage she had lived with Nadir Hussain for a period of 9 months only whereafter on 8-11-1995 she obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage against him on the ground of Khula', subject to foregoing her claim of maintenance and dower on account of which she had got no concern with the said five Marlas of land. By way of consequential relief it was prayed that it be declared that he is the owner of the aforesaid five Marlas of land which is the subject-matter of the registered sale-deed and that the said registered sale-deed is ineffective on his rights and is liable to be cancelled.
2. The suit was opposed by Mst. Manzoor Mai, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and ultimately the suit was dismissed with costs by the trial Court on 10-7-2000.
3. Appeal of Hazoor Bukhsh, was also dismissed with costs by Additional District Judge, Multan on 31-5-2002.
4. The aforesaid concurrent judgments/decrees of the trial Court and the Appellate Court are assailed in this civil revision by Hazoor Bukhsh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that;
(i) by deciding Issues Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 jointly trial Court had committed illegality and material irregularity;
(ii) evidence was overlooked and misread by both the Courts below;
(iii) possession of the suit property was never delivered under the registered sale-deed to Mst.
Manzoor Mai; and
(iv) according to Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 two witnesses were required to prove the registered sale-deed whereas only one witness was produced.
6. First contention of the petitioner's counsel is without any substance inasmuch as Issues Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 were interlinked and interconnected, therefore, they could be discussed and decided together. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw my attention to any material piece of evidence which was overlooked or was misread by any of the two Courts below.
' A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that findings are based on evidence and were given after having examined and assessed the evidence. Judgment of the Appellate Court also reveals that it was delivered after reappraisal the entire evidence. Cogent reasons for upholding the judgment of the trial Court and for non-suiting the petitioner are given in the said judgment by the Appellate Court.
7. Execution of the registered deed in question (Exh.P.1) was not denied by the petitioner/plaintiff. Ex facie it was a sale-deed; it did not contain any condition as was alleged by the petitioner neither it disclosed that the property was being transferred to Mst. Manzoor Mai in lieu of her dower but it reflected that the property was sold by the petitioner to Mst. Manzoor Mai in consideration of Rs,10,000. Payment of sale consideration was admitted in the registered deed itself by the petitioner. Copy of Nike Nama was not produced in support of the assertion that the plot was given to Mst. Manzoor Mai by way of the dower.
'Concurrent conclusions drawn by the two Courts below are based on sound and plausible reasoning and against such findings revisional jurisdiction are not warranted.
8. Other submissions of the petitioner's counsel that possession of the property was not delivered by the petitioner to Mst. Manzoor Mai and instead of two only one marginal witness was produced to prove the execution of the deed are repelled being misconceived as the transaction in question was not of gift but was that of sale.
' According to the plaint the petitioner had purchased share in joint Khata measuring 10 Marlas. Out of which he had transferred 5 Marlas vide registered sale-deed to Mst. Manzoor Mai and had also acknowledged in the said deed of having given symbolic possession to her. The sale-deed cannot be, therefore, deemed as void if actual physical possession was not delivered to the transferee.
9. Execution of the deed (Exh.P.1) was not denied by the petitioner but it was sought to be declared as illegal and ineffective on his rights on the grounds which could not be proved by the petitioner.
In such circumstances when the execution of the deed was not denied, Mst. Manzoor Mai was not required to prove its execution by producing two marginal witnesses.
10. For the reasons stated above, civil revision is hereby dismissed in limine.