1994 PLP 2299 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S.39‑-‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for cancellation of sale deed‑‑‑Plaintiffs failed to establish on record fraud and misrepresentation particularly in view of the fact that sale deed was a registered document‑‑ Overwhelming evidence produced by defendants ruled out possibility of fraud or misrepresentation‑‑‑Sale deed was registered on 12‑11‑1960, while suit was filed on 21‑11‑1966, i.e about six years later‑‑‑Plaintiffs had tried to explain that they were in possession of land but that fact by itself was not sufficient proof of the allegations made by them‑‑‑No ground for interference with the judgment and decree of High Court dismissing plaintiff's suit was made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ch. Mazharul Haque Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and SA. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1994. SALEEM AKHTAR, J: ‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Judges of a Division Bench of the High Court whereby the regular second appeal filed by the respondents was allowed.

2. One Sardara filed a suit for declaration seeking relief that registered sale deed dated 12‑11‑1960 in favour of the respondents was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and was without consideration. He had also prayed for cancellation of the sale deed. The suit was dismissed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Jhang. By judgment dated 14‑3‑1969 the Additional District Judge, Jhang accepted‑the appeal and suit thus stood decreed. Sardara died during the pendency of the appeal and is represented by his legal heirs. The main ground for cancellation of the sale deed was that the respondents are closely related to Sardara and as the latter was sick, he agreed to lease out the land in dispute and thus executed registered lease deed. However, later he came to know that it was a sale deed. The respondents defended the action alleging' that it was a registered sale deed with the knowledge and consent of Sardara whom they ‑had paid Rs.35,000 as the sale consideration before the Registering Officer at the time of registration.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the evidence of the parties, but has not been able to controvert the facts emerging from an appraisal of the statements of the P.Ws. and D.Ws. that the sale deed was ' registered before the Registering Officer and that the parties were identified by an Advocate as testified by the Registering Officer in his evidence. From the overwhelming evidence produced by the respondents the possibility of fraud or misrepresentation is ruled out. The petitioners have not been able to establish fraud and misrepresentation particularly in view of the fact that the sale deed was a registered document. The P.Ws. were not able to satisfactorily prove the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. One fact which seems to be floating on the surface is that the sale deed was registered on 12‑11‑1960, but the suit was filed on 21‑11‑1966, i.e. about six years later. The petitioners have tried to explain that Sardara was in possession of the land, but the fact remains that this by itself is not sufficient proof of the allegation made by them. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Leave is refused. A.A./S‑850/S Leave refused.