1999SCMR2152 (PLP)

MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 18-12-1997 of the Lahore High Court through which Civil Revision No. 533 of 1996 filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 9-1-1996 of the learned Additional District Judge by which on acceptance of the appeal of the respondents against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 24-2-1993, the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed, has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed a civil suit before the trial Court alleging that the land in dispute had been purchased by them through agreement of sale about thirty years back and they should be declared to be the owners thereof. The suit was contested by the respondents. The trial Court after considering the evidence produced by the parties decreed the suit through judgment dated 24-2-1993. The appeal filed by the respondents before the First, Appellate Court, however, was accepted through judgment dated 9-1-1996 and the suit was dismissed. The main consideration which brought With the trial Court was that for a long time, the respondent had not been paid Batai of the land, therefore, it was a circumstance in favour of the case of the petitioners that they had been continuously in possession of the land as owners thereof. Civil Revision No.553 of 1996 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through Judgment dated 18-12-1997 against which leave to appeal has been sought.

3. The suit was filed in 1991 in which it was alleged that the agreement of sale was made about thirty years back. In the evidence, the witnesses of the petitioners stated that the said agreement was made about thirty years back. The learned Judge to Chamber considering that no receipt was obtained for the payment of a huge amount of Rs.20,000 as alleged in 1961 as full consideration of the land no document was got executed and registered, that huge amount as full consideration had been allegedly paid, that no grievance was made about the entries in the Khasra Girdawari in which the petitioners had been shown as tenants at will for such a long time and that in 1971, the respondent No. 1 transferred the land through Tamleek to his sons and no objection was raised by the petitioners for a long time and that no cogent evidence had been produced to prove that the land was sold by respondent No.1, came to the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to establish that any such agreement of sale was ever made, therefore, revision petition was dismissed through the impugned judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners when questioned as to why the suit was filed in 1991 even after the land was transferred by the vendor to his two sons in 1971 and what were the reason for this delay because by this conduct of respondent No. l they should have come to know that he was denying their alleged rights and even the existence of any agreement of sale, submitted that the petitioners came to know about the said Tamleek in 1991. When asked to refer to the relevant portion of the plaint in order to show as to at which point of time the petitioners came to know of the said mutation referred to para.7 of the plaint. We have gone through the said paragraph and find that it was not pleaded that the petitioners came to know about the transfer of the land through Tamleek in 1991 whereas on the other had it has been averred that on the transfer of land through Tamleek, the petitioners approached the respondent who promised that he would get the land transferred to them on the attaining of age of majority by his two sons in whose favour he had transferred the land.

5. We are afraid, if this explanation of respondent No; 1 would have satisfied a man of ordinary prudence for had there been any sale in favour of the petitioners, they would. have re-acted and approached the Court on the day the land was transferred by the alleged vendor to his son through Tamleek which was an act in negation of their ownership rights. No reason has been given as to why a payment of entire amount of consideration of Rs.20,000 as alleged was made without obtaining any receipt and if the same had in fact be made as to why a sale-deed was not got executed and registered except that the petitioners acted on the basis of confidence which they reposed in respondent No. l about the promises given to them that he would not dispute their ownership rights later on which in our opinion is not satisfactory explanation.

6. An attempt was made during the trial to explain that no document was got executed as no sale could be made in view of the provisions of the Land Reforms Laws. This has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge while observing that if the land could be transferred to his two sons by the vendor of the petitioners and the same was not hit by the Land Reforms Laws, it could also be transferred through sale-deed.

7. The findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment are based on correct appraisal of evidence produced by the parties and inferences drawn therefrom which could legitimately be drawn, therefore, it does not suffer from any illegality as no case of, misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence has been made out.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. H.B.T/S-101/S Petition dismissed.