2007 PLP 2450 (YLR)

C.M. No.98-C of 2007 SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the acceptance of this C.M. and restoration of the civil revision provided the matter is heard today on merits. Consequently, with the consent of the parties this C.M. is accepted and the civil revision is restored to its original number and is being heard today.

2. This civil revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 25-4-2002 whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-2002 was dismissed.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this civil revision are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the sale-deed dated 13-10-1996 executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 is invalid and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner who along with the respondent No.1, is the co-owner of the property. It was the case of petitioner that the property in fact had been purchased by the father of the petitioner and respondent No.1 who were brothers and had been transferred vide the impugned sale-deed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 who held the sanne as Benami. The said suit was contested by the parties, issues were framed and evidence was led. Whereafter the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10-1-2002. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which also failed to find favour and was dismissed vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 25-4-2002.

4. The learned counsel for the parties and the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab have been heard and the record perused.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments suffer from non-reading of evidence inasmuch as Exh.P.1 and P.2 had not been considered by the two Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees.

6. The contentions "raised on behalf of the petitioner have been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 who had contended that the petitioner has failed to prove that the transaction in question was Benami in nature. Adds that there is a concurrent finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

7. In pith and substance the entire case of the petitioner before this Court is based upon Exhs.P.1 and P.2. The former Exh.P.1 is a statement of accounts purportedly issued by the United Bank Limited in respect of an account of the father of the petitioner and respondent No.1. The learned counsel has attempted to rely upon the said document to show that the funds which were the consideration paid. by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for the land in question were actually given by the father of the petitioner to respondent No.1. It has been noticed that the said statement of accounts is not certified in terms of the Bankers' Book Evidence Act. No such certificate is appended with or upon the said statement of accounts. The author thereof has also not entered the witness box to prove the said statement of accounts. In fact neither the record nor any employee of the Bank concerned has been produced in evidence. In the circumstances the said document had rightly not been relied upon by the two Courts below. Similarly Exh.P.2 which is a letter purportedly issued by respondent No.2 does not bear the signatures of any person. Its author has not entered the witness box to prove the same. Similarly the record of the said respondent was never summoned to prove the issuance of the said letter. In the circumstances the two Courts below have rightly not relied upon the said letter.

8. In the above circumstances, the sole contention raised by the petitioner is without any merit. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the property in dispute vests in respondent No.1 which fact is sufficiently supported by documentary evidence. The ingredients of a Benami transaction have not been proved on record. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. There is no material irregularity B in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.H./A-113/L Revision dismissed.