1976 PLP 465 (SCMR)

DORAB PATEL, J.‑This petition for leave has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by which the learned Single Judge dismissed in limine the petitioner's appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Gujrat by which the learned District Judge had set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents 2 to

6. The dispute in this petition relates to agricultural land which the petitioner claims to have purchased from the first respondent in October, 1368 for a sum of Rs. 45,

000. However, the second respondent and Salehon deceased, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents 1 to 6, also claim that they bad purchased the same land from the second respondent for a sum of Rs. 40,000, therefore, they disputed the petitioner's claim arid as they were in possession, in the events that happened, the petitioner tiled a suit against them for their eviction on the ground that they were trespassers. Tine res pondents contested the suit but the sale on which they relied was also not registered nor was it supported by any mutation. However, they were ire possession of the suit land and Moulvi Sirajul Haq admitted that they were very closely related to the second respondent. Both sides produced evidence in order to prove the alleged oral sale in their favour and the trial Court accepted the evidence produced by she petitioner as his claim was supported by the first respondent, therefore, it decreed the petitioner's suit. The respondents filed an appeal in the District Court, and as the learned District Judge was not impressed by the evidence produced by the petitioner, he set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the petitioner's suit. The petitioner thereupon filed a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed in limine. Hence this petition for leave. Moulvi Sirajul Haq relied on the fact that the trial Court had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses and was impressed by the witnesses produced by the petitioner, therefore, the submission was that the District Court had erred in interfering witty the trial Court's appreciation of evidence. But in decreeing the petitioner's claim the trial Court had attached very great weight to the fact that the vendor namely the first respondent had supported the petitioner. The District Court was of the view that the trial Court had attached exaggerated Importance to the first respon dent's evidence, and as the first respondent admittedly had no interest in the suit land, no exception can be taken to the view of the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge, however, also pointed out that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the petitioner and ref his witnesses which had been ignored by the trial Court. That is correct, and to cite only on material discrepancy, a witness by the name of Ahmad, who was examined by tile petitioner and why, supported the petitioner's claim, said that the petitioner had paid the first respondent in his presence. But as to the mod of payment, the witness said that payment had been made in currency notes of Rs. 1,000 of Rs. 1‑00 and of Rs.

50. Even Moulvi Sirajul Haq admitted that currency notes of Rs. 1,000 had ceased to be the legal tender long before the alleged sale in favour of the petitioner, in these circumstances it is not surprising that the District Court could not agree with the trial Court's appreciation of evidence. There were also other circumstances ignored by the trial Court. The petitioner had to explain why ho had taken no steps even to effect a mutation of the sale in his favour. As he has given no explanation. Moulvi Sirajul Haq; merely pointed out that she respondents had also not effected a muta tion of the sale in their favour and had not explained their failure so to do. That is true, but admittedly the respondents were in possession of the suit lard and were very closely related to the first respondent. Therefore, the circumstances furnish an explanation of their delay in effecting the mutation, but as the petitioner was a stranger to tile first respondent, his failure to effect the mutation of the alleged sale in his favour is a circumstance which goes against his claim, the more so, be had not even obtained a letter of attornment from the first respondent. Additionally, the petitioner claims to have paid Rs. 45,000 to the first respondent in each, and he was cross -examined on this claim by tile respondents. As the amount was a very substantial amount, the petitioner should have produced documentary evidence to show, for example, that he had drawn this large amount from leis bank account or from a lariat office account, but the petitioner only relied on oral evidence. Therefore, the view taken by the District Court appears to us to be the correct view. In any crane, it is amply supported by evidence, therefore, the second appeal did not raise any question of 'aw and was only lit to be dismissed ire limine as it was so dismissed. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.