' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- Munshi Khan, the predecessor-ininterest of the appellants, on 10-6-1989 brought a suit for possession, and also challenged the sale-deed dated 13-3-1988, registered in favour of the respondents Nos.1 and 2, on the ground that the said respondents had procured the same through fraud and misrepresentation. Plaintiff's case is, that though he executed the sale- deed dated 12-3-1988, but the respondents Nos.1 and 2, did not make him the payment of the consideration amount of Rs,4,16,000 on the pretext that the sale-deed shall be submitted for registration the next day, but thereafter, they did not contact the plaintiff, rather by producing some fictitious person before the Sub-Registrar/Joint Registrar, Faisalabad, on 13-3-1988, got the sale-deed registered in their names, resultantly, such sale is ineffective are invalid qua his rights, he accordingly asked for the declaration and prayed for the possession of the suit property. It may be pertinent to state here, that besides the vendees, the two witnesses of the sale-deed namely Muhammad Sharif, the alleged broker, and Muhammad A shraf, the nephew of the plaintiff, were also impleaded as defendants, on the ground that all the defendants in collusion with each other, had played fraud upon the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendants, following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is collusive with Maqsood Ahmed Khan? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable because the thumb-impression of the plaintiff is not genuine? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to file this suit? OPD
(6) Whether the suit property has not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands? OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiff has not given the details of fraud and the suit is defective? OPD
(9) Whether the suit is frivolous and the defendants Nos.1, 2 are entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(10) Whether the registered sale-deed dated 13-3-1988 is not executed. By the plaintiff before the Joint Registrar, Faisalabad? OPP
(11) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for? OPP
(12) Relief.
' The plaintiff examined P.W.1, Bashir Ahmad, Accountant A.B.L. Branch, Faisalabad, who deposed that the amount of R.3,00,000 was deposited in the bank account of Muhammad Ashraf/respondent No,3, Muhammad Arshad Tirmazi/P.W.2, in the Head Clerk in the office of D.C.
Faisalabad, and has stated that the endorsement at the back of sale-deed Exh.D.1 is not in his handwriting, but of his Assistant, P.W.3/Akbar Ali, the Reader of the D.C., Faisalabad has stated that though there is thumb-impression of the vendor on the register against relevant serial number, but he has not got this impression affixed in his presence. The plaintiff also applied to the Court for seeking comparison of his thumb-impression on the record of the Sub-Registrar/Joint Registrar Office, which request was finally allowed, however, it was found that there is double mark on the thumb-impression, and resultantly, no comparison could be effected. Conversely, the defendants/respondents examined D.W.1/Rao Muhammad Tariq, Magistrate 1st Class/Sub- Registrar, Faisalabad, who had effected the registration of Exh.D.1, Muhammad Sharif, the alleged broker and Muhammad Ashraf, nephew of the plaintiff, appeared as D.W.2 and D.W.3, they ,are the marginal witnesses of the aforesaid document and had also identified the plaintiff at the time of the registration, and D.W.4 is the vendee himself. Besides, the above oral evidence, the respondents/defendants also brought on record copy of the impugned sale-deed Exh.D.1, Iqrarnama/agreement to sell dated 29-2-1988 as Exh.D.2, the receipt of an amount of Rs,1,16,000 as Exh.D.3, copy of the plaint in a suit earlier filed by Maqsood Ahmed against the plaintiff and also the defendants, as Exh.D.4, which was dismissed by the Court on account of non-deposit of the process fee, vide order Exh.D.5; Exh.D.6 is the notice for preempting the sale issued by one Nazir Ahmad. The trial Court on the conclusion of the trial had dismissed the suit, holding that Munshi Khan, A had executed the sale-deed and also appeared before the Sub-Registrar. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends, that the Court below has misread the evidence, because it was established on the record that the plaintiff/Munshi Khan, was never- present before the Sub-Registrar on 13-3-1988, and some fictitious person was produced. It is also stated that the sale-deed in view of the location of the suit property should have been got registered at the Tehsil Jaranwala, but with a fraudulent intent, the respondents had the same registered at District Faisalabad, and resultantly on account of the above, the fraud stands established. It is further submitted, that the respondents with an object to perpetuate and conceal their fraud had tampered the thumb-impression of Munshi Khan on the record of the Sub-Registrar/Joint Registrar, Faisalabad, so that those could not be examined and proved not belong to him. In elaborating the above contention, it is submitted that the appellant at the earlier applied to the trial Court for the opinion of the Finger Print Expert about this impression on the record of 'the Sub- Registrar, but the respondents resisted the matter, obviously with an object to gain time to manipulate and tamper the impression. It is also contended, that the fraud has been committed with the plaintiff, in collusion with Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Sharif, and the proof of the fact is that an amount of Rs,3,00,000 was deposited in the account of Muhammad Ashraf on 14-3- 1988, which fact proves that the consideration amount was not paid to Munshi Khan. It is further submitted, that on the copy of register Exh.P.3. Of the Sub-Registrar, there is no date of any other entry with regard to the attestation of the sale-deed Exh.D.1. Lastly, it is submitted that the endorsement at the back of sale-deed should have been re-verified by the Sub-Registrar and not by a Clerk as is in the instant case.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and find that apart of the execution and registration of the sale-deed Exh.D.1, Munshi Khan had entered into an agreement to sell with defendants Nos.1 and 2 for the sale of the suit-land for a total consideration of Rs,4,16,000 and in this behalf, had executed an agreement to sell Exh.D.2, dated 29-2-1988, as per this agreement, which has been proved through the marginal witnesses Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Sharif, Munshi Khan, had received Rs,1,16,000 as an advance/earnest money and the balance amount was payable at the time of the finalization of the transaction. Exh.D.3, is the receipt of even date, through which Munshi Khan had received the above advance amount and this document has also been proved through the marginal witnesses, thus, in pursuance of the above agreement sale-deed, Exh.D.1, was executed by Munshi Khan on 12-3-1988, and the same was registered by the Sub- Registrar, Faisalabad, on 13-3-1988. The attorney of Munshi Khan while appearing as a witness, has not denied the execution of the sale-deed in which due reference has been made to the agreement to sell and the receipt of the advance money. The case of Munshi Khan, is that as the consideration was not paid to him on 12-3-1988 and on the request of the defendants Nos.1 and 2 the registration process was postponed, but subsequently the respondents by producing some fictitious person got the sale-deed executed/registered, is absolutely not proved on record. It may be mentioned here, that Maqsood Ahmed, son of Munshi Khan/plaintiff, had earliest filed a suit against the defendants and in paragraph 4 of the plaint Exh.P.4, it is stated that the amount of the sale proceeds receipt on the basis of the sale-deed, was not given to Munshi Khan, rather defendant No,3, had deposited this amount in his own account. Even in the present case, the basic grievance agitated, is that the amount of consideration has not been paid to Munshi Khan. The plaintiff himself has produced P.W.1, the Accountant of the A.B.L., Faisalabad, who has stated that an amount of Rs,3,00,000 was deposited in the account of Muhammad Ashraf/respondent No,3, who is the nephew of Munshi Khan and is the marginal witness of the above three documents and had also identified Munshi Khan at the time when the sale-deed was presented. This clearly shows, that the defendants Nos.1 and 2, did pay the consideration to Munshi Khan, but if he was accompanied by Muhammad Ashraf, his nephew, and the amount has been retained by Muhammad Ashraf and deposited in his own account, the defendants Nos.1 and 2 cannot be held to have not paid the consideration and on this account, the sale-deed cannot be rendered ineffective and declared that the same was got registered by producing some fictitious person in the place of Munshi Khan.
P.W.3/Maqsood Ahmed, son of the plaintiff, while appearing as a witness, had stated that he was residing in Sindh and that in his absence Muhammad Ashraf, P.W.3 was looking after Munshi Khan and also providing him with food etc. It may be pertinent to state here, that in pursuance of the above sale-deed, the mutation was also attested in favour of the defendants Nos.1 and 2 and the possession was also taken over by them. It may further be mentioned here, that D.W.1/Rao Muhammad Tariq, Magistrate 1st Class, who is the Sub-Registrar, Faisalabad, had appeared and has testified that he also checked the identity card of Munshi Khan at the time of the presentation of the sale-deed Exh.D.1 before him, and that the payment was made to the vendor in his presence.
All this evidence establishing beyond doubt, that the sale-deed was executed by Munshi Khan, he presented the same before the Sub-Registrar, received the money from the defendants Nos.1 and 2, but if the amount has been misappropriated by his nephew Muhammad Ashraf/D.W.3, the sale as mentioned earlier cannot be held void or ineffective against his rights.
4. As regards the argument, that there are certain discrepancies in the record of the Sub-Registrar regarding serial number etc. Suffice it to say, that it is not the case of the plaintiff in the plaint, and it is 'settled. Law, that no person can lead evidence beyond the scope of his pleadings, specific grievance of the plaintiff, is that he never appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 13-3-1988, but now to refer to any discrepancy in the record of the Registration Authority, would not be of any advantage to the plaintiff. It may also be mentioned here, that the discrepancies pointed out about the serial numbers and the signatures of the Sub-Registrar are of very insignificant nature and have no effect upon the validity of the sale-deed which otherwise stands proved.
5. The other submission, that the sale-deed was not got registered at Jaranwala, rather at District Faisalabad, it may be mentioned that in support of the above submission, no law has been cited due to which the sale-deed can be held to be valid on this account.
6. The last submission that the thumb-impression of Munshi Khan, was tempered by the respondent, on the register of the Sub-Registrar, so as to avoid the possibility of the comparison by a Finger Print Expert, and therefore, the sale be declared invalid. It may be held that no inference without any evidence on the record, that the thumb-impression has been tampered by the defendants Nos.1 and 2, can be drawn against them.
7. In the light of above, we do not find any error in the judgment of the Court below in reaching to the conclusion that Munshi Khan, had validly executed the agreement to sell, appeared before the Sub-Registrar, received the money of the consideration, delivered the possession, and therefore, the sale is valid in law; our own reading of the evidence on record, takes us to the same conclusion.
Accordingly, this appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed.