' TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.---This order shall dispose ofC.P.L.A. No,3420-L of 2001 and C.P.L.A. No,3421-L of 2001 which are directed against a consolidated judgment, dated 1-8-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Civil Revisions Nos.270-D of 1990 and 271-D of 1990 whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court had dismissed the civil revisions of the petitioners maintaining the earlier determination of the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, dated 10-5-1990 whereby he set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court, dated 20-1-1987.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner as well as Khalil Ahmad, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, are brothers inter se. They jointly purchased 1/2 square of land in Abad Kari Scheme in the name of Khalil Ahmad predecessor-in-interest of the respondents who was also a Patwari.
Agreement Exh.P.1 was executed by Khalil Ahmad on 2nd of March, 1961 acknowledging half share of the petitioner, his brother in the land in question. The petitioner also secured his share of land according to the aforesaid agreement. However, subsequently a dispute arose between the two brothers whereupon the petitioner was constrained to file two suits against his brother Khalil Ahmad. The first one was a declaratory suit seeking declaration qua the land in his possession and ownership. The second suit was for perpetual injunction against his brother as well as one Abdul Hameed restraining them permanently from interfering with his possession/ownership.
3. The averments made by the petitioner-plaintiff in the respective pleadings were denied by the defendants-respondents. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, consolidated issues were framed. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court after scanning the entire evidence decreed both the suits of the petitioner through his consolidated judgment, dated 20-1-1987. The respondents filed two appeals which were accepted by the learned District Judge through judgment, dated 10-5-1990. The petitioner filed civil revisions which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition with the assistance of the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. The whole case revolves around the execution of the acknowledgement (Exh. P.1), dated 2-3-1961.
The petitioner produced convincing evidence on record to substantiate its execution. Mere denial of the respondent would not shatter the same unless and until it is substantiated from the record.
The learned trial Judge admitted execution of the agreement (Exh.P.1). However, the learned District Judge while reversing the determination of the trial Court had not at all stated that the aforesaid agreement was never executed. On the contrary the learned First Appellate Court held that in fact the said Iqrar Nama was transferring the tenancy rights to the petitioner. It was further held by the learned First Appellate Court that the said agreement was executed between the parties without securing prior permission from the Collector as required under section 19 of the Colonization of Government of Lands Act, 1912. The learned First Appellate Court after accepting the execution of Exh.P.1 held that the said agreement was violative of section 19 supra. Similar view was taken by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court while maintaining the determination of the learned Appellate Court through the impugned judgment. This shows that none of the forums have doubted the execution of Exh.P.1. It does not now lie in the mouth of the respondent to back out from the same by pleading that the same was violative of section 19 of the Colonization of Government of Lands Act, 1912. The equities are in favour of the petitioner who has successfully substantiated the execution of the agreement by his elder brother Khalil Ahmad.
6. The possession of the petitioner respecting his share has also been substantiated on record not only through oral convincing evidence but also from the documentary evidence. He produced copy of Khasra Gardarwari as well as copy of Jamabandi of the suit-land wherein he had been entered in possession as co-sharer. The learned Single Judge mechanically followed the determination of the First Appellate Court and failed to appreciate the evidence on record into its true perspective. At the cost of repetition the petitioner produced convincing evidence not only respecting the execution of agreement Exh.P.1 but also delivery of possession of his share by producing as many as seven witnesses including himself. The other brother e. The predecessor-in- interest of the respondents only tried to dislocate the petitioner on technicalities.
7. In view of what has been noticed and discussed above, these petitions are converted into appeals and the same are allowed. Resultantly the impugned judgments of the learned revisional Court as well as that of the First Appellate Court are set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff- petitioner is decreed. There shall be however no orders as to costs.