' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-9-1992 delivered by Civil Judge Tangi whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1, Momin Khan, was decreed against which the appeal filed by the petitioners and others was also dismissed by the learned Additional District, Judge, Charsadda on 21-6-1995.
2. The brief facts of the, case are that respondent No.1 Momin Khan filed Suit No.108/1 on 9-4-1983 seeking declaration to the effect that he was owner of land measuring 220 Kanals, 5 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 1272 situated in Muza Hissara Nehri District Charsadda on the basis of sale- deed (unregistered) dated 29-6-1963 executed in his favour, by Shahzad Gul and Aftrab Gul predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and that inheritance Mutation No.1975 attested on 5-2-1983 is wrong, illegal and ineffective upon his rights. In the alternative declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession was sought. Further alternative relief for possession was also prayed for. The suit was vehemently contested by the defendants by filing written statement. The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the relevant issues. The parties were allowed to adduce their respective evidence. The learned Trial Court after giving audience to the learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent vide order dated 22-9-1992. The appeal filed by the petitioner also did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge, Charsadda who dismissed the same on 21-6-1995. Hence the present revision petition.
3. Mr. Ghulam Nactoshband Khan, Advocate the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned decree and orders of the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the unregistered document upon which the respondent has based his title could not be proved in accordance with law, in that, neither the payment of sale consideration was established nor the transfer of the ownership of the property in question has been proved by the respondent/plaintiff through reliable and cogent evidence. It was further argued that the alleged unregistered deed was merely agreement to sell which itself is not enough to confer title upon the respondent, therefore, a suit for specific performance should have been filed by the respondent within the requisite period. The learned counsel insisted the that suit-land was in fact mortgaged with the respondent by the predecessor- in-interest of the-petitioners in lieu of Rs.5,181 and it act for that reason that the respondent kept during the life-time of the vendor, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Gulsadbar Khan, Advocate, advocating for the respondent, vehemently and forcefully contested the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
5. The land in question was allotted to Shahzad Gul and Aftab Gul, sitting tenants, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner under Land Reforms in lien of certain amount to be paid to land Reforms authorities. There is no denial of the fact that the allotment amount of Rs.5181 was paid to the Revenue authorities by Momin Khan respondent through Cheque No.CAG 721813, dated 28-9-1963 and Cheque No.CAG 721812 of the same date. While challenging inheritance mutation dated 5-1- 1983, the respondent claimed that after allotment of the suit-land, the allottees Shahzad Gul and Aftab Gul had struck a deal vide sale-deed dated 29-6-1963 with Momin Khan whereupon he paid an amount of Rs.5181 in shape of two Cheques (mentioned above to the Land ReformsAuthorities and the remaining amount of Rs.74,920 was paid to him in cash. The vendor had promised to attest mutation after the suit-land was transferred to them by Land Reforms Authorities in the Revenue record. However, in the meanwhile the allottees died and the requisite mutation could not be attested whereas the petitioner's stand was that the land in question was mortgaged with the respondent Momin Khan for Rs.5181 which was paid to the Land Reforms Authorities.
6. Admittedly the respondent is in possession of the suit-land. As per statement of Alamzeb Patwari Halqa P.W.1, Momin Khan respondent is entered in possession of the disputed property since Jamabandi 1966-67 as and the same entry continued till 1982-83. He further deposed that Shahzad Gul and Aftab Gul predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners have never remained in possession of the suit-land. Firdus Khan P.W.2, Chashier, Habib Bank Limited. Tehsil Bazar Charsadda, produced the original Cheque No.CAG. 721812, dated 28-9-1963, Exh. P.W. 2/1 and Cheque No. CAG 721813, dated 28-9-1963, Exh. P.W. 2/2 each issued by Momin Khan for Rs.2590 from his Account No.207, Habib Bank Limited. Tehsil Bazar Charsadda in the name of Dost Muhammad official of Land Reforms Authorities, Dost Muhammad, Sub-Registrar, Land Reforms Tehsil Office, Charsadda (P.W.
4) has verified the statement of Firdus Khan (P.W. 2) Mirch son of Faqir Gul (P.W.5) marginal witness of sale-deed Exh. P.W. 5/1, confirmed his thumb-impression on the sale-deed and stated that it was scribed at the instance of Shahzad Gul and Aftab Gul in favour of Momin Khan and that the same document is duly thumb impressed by the executants (Shahzad Gul and Aftab Gul) in his presence. Thus it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that the allotment amount of Rs.5181 was paid by respondent Momin Khan to the Revenue Authorities and in lieu thereof sale-deed (Exh. P.W.
5/1) was executed by the original allottee and possession of the suit-land was delivered to respondent Momin Khan. The execution of the sale-deed has also been verified by the marginal witness. As to claim of the petitioners that the suit-land was mortgaged by their predecessors-in- interest in favour of Momin Khan, not even an iota of evidence has been produced to prove the same. No suit foctredemption of the mortgaged property was ever filed by the petitioners, hence their claim is without any force and is rejected.
7. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sale-deed (Exh. P.W. 5/J) being not proved by two attesting witnesses in terms of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat is bad in the eye of law is misconceived. There can be no denial of the fact that under section 68 of the Evidence Act examination of one attesting witness was the requirement of the law to prove the execution of a document/deed. Section, 6 of the General Clauses Act provides that -repeal shall not effect anything not enforce orexisting at the time of which the repeal takes place. The new law of evidence i.e. Qanun-e-Shahadat came into existence in the year 1984. The sale-deed (Exh. P.W. 5/1) in question was scribed in 1963 and the present suit was filed in the year 1983 prior to the promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 therefore, the execution of the deed was to be proved in the light of section 68 of the erstwhile Evidence Act, 1872 and not under Article 79 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984. In this context, reference may be made to the authority of Supreme Court given in Civil Petition No .557-1/99, decided on 6-3-2002.
' In view of the above, the impugned judgments warrant no interference. The present revision petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.