The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration or. 21-1-1988 before the Civil Judge, Bhakkar. The contents of the plaint reveal that the respondents were the owners m possession of the House No.A/72 as legal heirs of the original owner Noor Muhammad. The contents of the plaint further reveal that the petitioner -and his sons had no concern with the property in question. It was alleged in the contents of the plaint by the respondents that the property was owned by Noor Muhammad who was the real brother of the respondents who died leaving behind the widow. His widow had also died about 2-1/2 months back. Noor Muhammad was issueless, therefore; respondents were his legal heirs. The petitioner had no concern, whatsoever, with the property in question but the petitioner announced 'that he purchased the property in question from Noor Muhammad in the year 1974. The contents of the plaint further reveal that the stamp deeds if any were result of fraud and misrepresentation. Noor Muhammad was suffering from serious disease since 1967 and he had died in that condition in the year 1974 Azhar son of the petitioner is the police constable and he threatened the respondents/defendants' to be dispossessed so the need of the suit arises. The petitioner also filed a suit for possession before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Bhakkar on 24-10-1987 on the ground that the original owner Noor Muhammad had sold away the property in question in favour of the petitioner on 30-12-1971 through 8 sale-deeds for a consideration of Rs.792. The contents of the plaint of the petitioner's suit/written statement further reveal that the possession was delivered to the petitioner but thereafter the widow of Noor Muhammad started living in the house in question with the consent of the petitioner as she was issueless. The contents further reveal that petitioner who was looking after the widow of Noor Muhammad, after the death of Noor Muhammad. After the death of original owner the respondents unlawfully taken over the possession of this property.
The property in question was the same, therefore, the learned Trial Court consolidated both the suits vide order, dated 15-6-1992. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for declaration? OPP
(2) Whether the suit was a counterblast to the suit instituted by the defendant No. 1 for possession and the proceedings in the instant suit were liable to be stayed? OPD.
(3) Whether the defendants No.2 and 3 were the necessary party in the suit? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are not the owners of the property? OPD.
(5) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD.
(5-A) Whether the defendants are entitled to a decree for possession? OPD.
(5-B)Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD.
(5-C) Whether the value of the house was Rs.1,00,000 at the time of the suit and if so, whether the valuation of the suit is incorrect? OPD (5-D)Whether the suit of the plaintiffs was false and baseless and the plaintiffs were entitled to the damages under section 35-A, C.P.C. Amounting to Rs.5,000? OPP.
(6) Relief.
2. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 28-2-1993 accepted the suit of the respondents and dismissed the suit of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bhakkar, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 1-2-1994, hence, the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the judgments of the Courts below are result of misreading and non---reading of the record. He further submits that the documents Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.14 were illegally exhibited by the Trial Court but this fact was not considered by both the Courts below, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. He further urges that it was not proved by any witness that the signature on Exh.PB. A photocopy of Identity Card, Post Card Exh.PC and another post card Exh.PD and Form Exh. P-3 were containing the true signatures of Noor Muhammad. The aforesaid documents were not proved either to be written or signed by Noor Muhammad by any witness in the civil suit, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of record. He further urges that Exhs.PC, PD and PE are admissible in evidence unless it is proved by producing evidence that these documents were either written in the hands of Noor Muhammad and they were in fact signed by him. The photocopy of the Identity Card is not admissible in evidence nor Exh.PC unless it is proved by producing evidence that these documents were either written in the hands of Noor Muhammad and they were in fact signed by him. He further urges that both the Courts below decided the controversy between the parties in violation of the Articles 59, 60, 61 and 71 of the Qanun-e---Shahadat Order, 1984 and the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contentions he relied upon the following judgments:-- Khan Muhammad Yusaf Khan Khattak v. S.M. Ayub and others PLD 1973 SC 160; Messrs Agro Marketing Corporation v. Pakistan and others PLD 1982 Lah. 20; S. Hifazat Hussain v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 363 and Subedar Fazal Hussain v. Qazi Muhammad Bashir PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 89.
He further submits that it is the duty of both the Courts below to make the comparison of the signatures of the original owner on the documents but this method was not adopted by the Courts below, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are not in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts, in the following judgments: -- Ali Ahmed v. The State PLD 1962 SC 102 and Gustad Manechji Shekdar v. The State PLD 1959 Dacca 756.
He summed up his arguments that documents in question were not required to be registered as the agreement to sell was executed amounting to Rs.99 each under the provisions of the section 17 of the Registration Act read with section 49 of Registration Act. He further urges that the judgments of both the Courts below are in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of the Property Act and the law laid down by the superior Courts in PLD 1966 Karachi 76 (there is no judgment at this page). He further submits that both the Courts below erred in law to rely upon Exh.P5 and Exh.P.16 which were set aside by this Court vide order, dated 2-4-1994 passed in W.P.
No.1272 of 1994. He further submits that the petitioner has also filed C.M. No.209/C of 2001 to place on record documents i.e. Judgment, dated 2-4-1994 passed in W.P. No.1272 of 1994 and parawise comments in W.P. No.4601 of 1995 by the Chief Officer Municipal Committee, Bhakkar, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And Order of Magistrate for cancellation of F.I.R. No.4, dated 19-7-1995, copy of death entry at Serial No. 110 of Register of Death relating to one Noor Muhammad alias Kona son of Hyshyar Muhammad. Copy of the death entry, dated 10-2-1974 relating to Noor Muhammad son of Fateh Muhammad, copy of false Register of death found in Office of Director Health showing death of Noor Muhammad Kona on 10-2-1974 at Serial No.17 in C.M. No.209/C of 2001.
4. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread by both the Courts below or decided the controversy between the parties in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. He further urges that the First Appellate Court decided the case vide judgment and decree, dated 1-2-1994 whereas W. P. No. 1272 of 1994 was decided by this Court vide order, dated 2-4-1994. He further submits that documents mentioned in C.M. No.209/C of 2001 have no relevancy to be decided the present controversy between the parties in view of the subsequent events as highlighted by the respondents by filing the reply of the said application in para. 4. The applicant/petitioner had concealed material facts from this Court qua C.M. No.209/C of 2001. He further submits that applicant/petitioner had filed application mala fide at belated stage in this revision petition. He further submits that after remand the case was decided against the applicant/petitioner, this Court also held in subsequent writ petition filed by the parties that the inquiry was held by the Tribunal below in accordance with law.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. The Application No.209/C of 2001 has no relevancy on the ground that the Courts below had decided the controversy against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce two attesting witnesses of the sale-deeds/agreement to sell which is a mandatory requirement in view of section 68 of the Evidence Act or Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of the First Appellate Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "Now turning to the evidence first of all I would take up the documents produced by the parties in support of their contentions. The main reliance of the appellants were the copies of the entries from the Register of petition writer Exh. D1 to Exh. D.8. They showed that Noor Muhammad had executed 8 unregistered sale-deeds in favour of Faqir Muhammad for a consideration of Rs.99. The marginal witnesses cited therein were Ch. Ali Muhammad and Ch. Abdul Sattar. The appellant had examined Ghulam Siddique Petition Writer as D.W.I. He had proved the copies Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.8. He had produced in his register showing the entries Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.8 in his register. During the cross- examination he frankly conceded that he did not know the parties. So, the statement of Ghulam Siddique simply shows that there were entries of the sale-deeds in his register, the copies of which he had produced, as Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.8. His statement was not sufficient to show that it was Noor Muhammad who had executed these sale-deeds. He admitted during the cross-examination that his register was taken in possession by the police in connection with a criminal case and that register was present in the Court. It may be noted that Register has become the part of the proceedings of this case and it is available on the judicial file. The other witness examined by him was Ali Ahmad D. W.
3. He stated that he was the marginal witness of the sale-deeds executed by Noor Muhammad in favour of the appellant. It is to be noted that the original sale-deeds were not produced. Only the copies of the sale-deeds Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.8 were produced and this man stated that probably he had signed these documents. This probability has created many doubts. The other witness Ch. Abdul Sattar was alive but he was not examined I perfectly agree with the findings of the learned trial Court that at least two marginal witnesses should have been examined to prove the execution of the sale-deeds. The evidence produced by the appellant was not at all sufficient to show that Noor Muhammad had sold the house in dispute in his favour and that he had received the consideration from him."
7. The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that the agreement to sell/sale-deeds executed by the original owner in favour of the petitioner was not proved by the petitioner in accordance with law. It is settled principle of law that nobody should get the benefit of the weaknesses of the case of the other side. The petitioner claims his title on the basis of the sale-deeds/agreement to sell which were not, as mentioned above, proved by the petitioner by producing two attesting witnesses which is mandatory requirement of law. The judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with the dictum laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- Salman Ali v. Maqbool Hussain and others 2000 YLR 1938 and Ghulam Yasin Butt and others v.
Manzoor Hussain and others 2000 YLR 915.
The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread by both the Courts below or decided the controversy between the parties in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, revision petition has no merits as per principle laid down by the Privy Council in N.S. Venkatagire Ayyanger and others v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras PLD 1949 PC 26 and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mehmood (1985 CLC 657). The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law. The application filed by the applicant/ petitioner No.209/C of 2001 for additional evidence has no force in view of the peculiar circumstances of this Court. The same is also dismissed. The revision petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.