2012 PLP 238 (CLC)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 6-5-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge; Khanpur whereby the I appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed against the judgment and decree dated 21-6-2008 whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed.

2. As per contention of the plaintiff-respondent she never sold the suit-land to the petitioner-defendant and Sale-Deed No.522 dated 22-4-2000 is forged and fictitious document. The defendant appeared and defended the suit. After submission of written statement learned trial Court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence and the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21-6-2008 decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant was dismissed. Hence civil revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was not competent because she has admitted her thumb-impressions on the impugned, sale-deed; that the case of the plaintiff-respondent is that her son was with her when alleged 'mustajri nama' was written; that Abid Hussain P.W.-2 is nephew of the plaintiff respondent; that pleadings and the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent are contradictory; that plaintiff-respondent had admitted before the Court (Registrar) that her thumb-impressions were affixed forcibly; that Ghulam Muhammad P. W-4 son of the plaintiff-respondent admitted that lambardar who identified plaintiff-respondent before the. Sub-Registrar was known to him and he even admitted that his father was watchman with that lambardar; that no impartial witness was produced by the plaintiff-respondent; that both the Courts below misinterpreted the documentary evidence i.e. jamabandi and both ; the Courts below wrongly held that plaintiff-respondent is in possession of the suit property and that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are result of misreading, non-reading and misinterpretation of documentary evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that .the petitioner-defendant being beneficiary of. impugned sale-deed was bound to prove the sale-deed beyond any - shadow of doubt; that the free-will of the plaintiff-respondent has not been proved for the impugned sale-deed; that the minor discrepancies in the evidence and pleadings can be ignored and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. I have noticed that thumb-impressions on the impugned sale-deed are admitted by the parties and by the witnesses. Even the plaintiff-respondent when appeared as P.W.-1 admitted that she affixed thumb-impressions on the sale-deed but stated that these were obtained under coercion. In this way thumb-impressions on the sale-deed are admitted B and in other words it is admitted that it was duly registered sale-deed and suit for declaration was not competent; rather suit for cancellation of document was required to be filed.

7. I have also noticed that son of the plaintiff-respondent P.W.-4Ghulam Muhammad was with her when the sale-deed was executed and attested. Her nephew Abid Hussain P.W.-2 was admittedly with her at the time of attestation of sale-deed. He is attesting witness of sale-deed. He has not even denied his signatures on the sale-deed. This witness also admitted that on Exh.P-1 there is photograph of his maternal aunt i.e. plaintiff-respondent whereas plaintiff-respondent has denied her photograph affixed on the sale-deed. I have further noticed that the evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondent is contradictory to her pleadings whereas petitioner-defendant has produced DW-2 Raza Ahmad Khan who is lambardar of the Mauza. DW-3 is Bashir Ahmad who is attesting witness of the sale-deed. DW-4 Abdul Rasheed is a Petition Writer who also proved the sale-deed and stated that Mst. Karam Mai affixed her thumb-impressions on the. sale-deed with her free-will and B consent. Exh.P-2 is jamabandi for the year 1995-96 in which in column of ownership name of Mst. Karam Mai exists and in column of possession it is noted as "Khud Kaashat". Both the Courts below misinterpreted this column "Khud Kaashat". When the name of transferee i.e. Abdul Rahman is not entered as owner in the column of owner, his possession was also not noted in the column of possession. Findings recorded by both the Courts 'below are result of misreading, non-reading and misinterpretation of documentary evidence produced by the parties. The petitioner- defendant has fully proved the execution of impugned sale-deed. - The plaintiff-respondent has failed to lead cogent evidence against the evidence produced by the petitioner-defendant. Even otherwise as I have noticed above, form of the suit was also incorrect.

8. In the light of what has been discussed above, I accept this revision petition, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Resultantly, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A-180/L?????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.