1993 PLP 1213 (CLC)

(4) Whether defendant No.1vide two agreements of sale‑decd dated 16‑1‑1974 sold the land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.39,000. (5) Whether the possession of Allah Bux was as a co‑sharer or as a lessee Benami for the plaintiff? (6) Whether defendants Nos.l. and 2 have any right or interest in the disputed land? (7) Whether defendant No.1after sale/transfer of the land to the plaintiff has fraudulantly entered in bogus deal with defendant No.2. If so what would be its effect? (8) Whether the ,plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the land and have made huge investment to improve the land? (9) Whether this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction in the present matter`? (10) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of C.P.C., Specific Relief Act, M.L.Rs. 61 and 11.5? (11) Whether the suit has been properly stamped and valued? (12) What should the decree be? The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective issues. The trial Judge after considering the evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit with costs. Due to creation of a new District, Badin, the suit was transferred to Senior Civil Judge Badin, who hard ultimately decided the suit. Haji Muhammad Suleman and Mehmood, the defendants in the suit, being aggrieved by the judgment and the decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge Badin, filed an appeal before the District Judge Badin which was rejected by him on 30‑4‑1979. The applicants by this application under section 115 Civil Procedure Code have impugned the judgment passed in appeal. Mr. G.M. Qureshi, Advocate appearing for the applicants contended that the two Courts below have decided the suit by misreading evidence on record, that applicant No.1was not examined in the suit and that wrong land was sold. He further contended that the sale‑deeds Exh.53 and Exh.54 were not proved, because the attesting witnesses were not examined and the exchange of land made between the two applicants was wrongly disbelieved. Mr. Naseem Farooqui contended that no infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the applicants concerning. the two judgments recording concurrent findings to enable this Court to disturb such findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C: He relied on cases published in 1987 SCMR 1349 and 1987 CLC 1788. Haji Muhammad Suleman, Applicant No.1herein according to this recorded share owned 59‑5 Acres of land out of the total area of 98‑72 Acres in one piece of land and 20‑6 Acres out of total area of 46‑15 Acres in another piece. He through the two registered sale‑deeds Exh.53 and Exh.54 sold the land owned by him to the three respondents, whose names were mutated in the Record of Rights as well. The remaining share in the two pieces belonged to co‑sharers of original owner Allah Jurio. The three respondents herein filed the suit as the applicants herein tried to frustrate the two sale‑deeds as they contrived to carry out the exchange of there lands as stated above. The applicant No.1who had conveyed his land to the three respondents by registered sale‑deeds preferred not to examine himself with the result that no evidence was brought on record to cast even a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the registered sale‑deeds. The applicant No.2 admitted in his cross‑examination that he had purchased the shares in land belonging to other co‑sharers of Allah Jurio. It clearly shows that after such purchase he tried to consolidate his holding by throwing out the respondents from the land. The applicant No.I did not file any suit for cancellation of the sale‑deeds executed by him in favour of respondents. Exchange of land between the two applicants as claimed by them was arranged long after the applicant No.1had divested himself of his said land. He, therefore, had no land to offer in exchange of land of applicant No.2. Besides exchange of land can only be completed in a manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale as required by sections 118 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the present case exchange was claimed on the basis of unregistered document. Both the Courts below after carefully appreciating the evidence produced by the parties have recorded concurrent findings in the case and no exception can be taken to such findings. Mr. G.M. Qureshi, Advocate appearing for the applicants, was not able to substantiate grounds urged by him.' For the foregoing reasons. I had by my short order passed on 4‑3‑1990 dismissed this revision application with no order as to costs. A.A./M‑1477/K Revision dismissed.