MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.4.2003 of the Lahore High Court whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The property in dispute was inherited by the parties from their father. The respondent-plaintiff is the real sister of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have purchased land measuring 44 kanals from the respondent out of the land which she had inherited alongwith him from her father through registered sale- deed dated 13.12.1983. In the year 1999, the respondent filed the present suit for declaration that the sale in question was the out come of fraud, for she did not sell her land and her thumb impressions were obtained by the petitioner on a paper giving her understanding that he wanted to obtain loan for tractor from the bank and when she came to know about the fraud, she filed the suit.
3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 20.2.2002 against which appeal filed by the respondent was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala Camp at Wazirabad and the suit dismissed. Revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment dated 16.4.2003 against which leave is sought.
4. We have been taken through the evidence produced by the parties and in particular the petitioner. Syed Ejaz Hussain appeared as DW 1 to prove the execution of the sale-deed by the respondent. He is the son of the scribe of the document. According to him, his father had died. He merely stated that the respondent put thumb impressions on the sale-deed in his presence but did not state that it was read over to her and she put her thumb impressions after understanding its contents and the consequences flowing there from of depriving her of right of ownership in the landing dispute. The other witness of document is Haji Abdul Latif, Lambardar who according to learned counsel had also died at the relevant time. He was the identifier of the respondent at the time of registration of the document before the Sub-Registrar. DW 1 did not state that Haji Abdul Latif Lambardar put his signatures on the sale-deed Exh. D1 but stated that his signatures were obtained on the relevant entry in the register of 'waseeqa-naveesi' of the documents. DW 1 also did not state that payment of consideration or any part thereof was made in his presence. Ejaz Ahmad, DW 3 produced by the petitioner merely stated that payment of consideration was made in his presence to the respondent but did not state as to when and where and about how many days before execution of sale-deed the said payment was made, In the recital of the document, the payment of consideration was not shown to have been made at the time of alleged execution pf sale-deed but the same was allegedly acknowledged to have been made prior thereto.
5. The plea of the respondent that she was made to thumb mark the document by giving her understanding that loan was to be obtained for purchasing tractor by the petitioner was very much known to the petitioner not only from the contents of the plaint but also from the evidence of the respondent when she appeared as PW 1 but inspite of that, none of the witnesses of the petitioner stated that the document Exh. D1 i.e., the sale-deed was read over to the respondent to make her known as to its contents, therefore, it was rightly held by the learned Judge of the High Court that execution of sale-deed had not been proved in accordance with law, for mere presence of thumb impressions on the document of the respondent which she had alleged to have been obtained by giving her understanding to get loan for tractor were not sufficient to prove the execution, It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner did not produce any witness from the village to witness the execution of document, for the son of the scribe Syed Ejaz Ali was made to witness the execution of the document who was not resident of the village. The respondent-plaintiff was a widow having minor children according to learned counsel but none of the near relatives was made to join the transaction and its settlement to prove that the respondent had independent advice about what she was doing as according to settled law, such an evidence necessary to prove execution of sale-deed by an illiterate pardah nashin lady in a case where the execution thereof had been denied and document challenged on the ground of fraud.
6. The onus through out had been on the petitioner to prove execution of the sale deed being beneficiary thereunder.
7. The findings recorded by the to immediate Courts below on pure questions of facts have not been shown to have suffered from any illegality such as misreading, non-reading or misconstruction of any material piece of evidence.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.