1980 PLP 692 (CLC)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -- S. 100-Second appeal-Original sale-deed not produced in Court and alleged to have been lost-Nothing stated as to how same came to be lost-Scribe of sale-deed and its marginal witnesses ,not personally knowing executant of deed and thus unable to say plaintiff being same person who executed same-Other witnesses deposing to plaintiff, respondent having executed deed notwithstanding test of scrutiny Man identifying executant before Sub-Registrar not produced by defendant/appellant-Stamp-vendor's register suspicious and showing purchaser of stamp paper being some one else having posed himself for plaintiff//respondent-Finding of Courts below with regard to deed being forged and judgments recorded by such Courts, in circumstances, not open to interference by High Court especially when nothing wrong in judgments or any material thing adversely affecting such findings pointed out by appellant-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S.

63. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. This is a second appeal by the appellant against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below by which the suit of Sattar Muhammad respondent was decreed in his favour. His suit for cancellation of a sale deed of the suit land was brought in the Court of Sub-Judge, Mirpur on the ground that no sale-deed in respect of the land in suit was executed by him and that the same was a forgery. The suit was resisted by the appellant. An issue to the following effect was framed:- Whether the plaintiff executed the sale-deed of the land in suit in favour of the defendant? O. P. D. The evidence was led by the parties for and against the issue. Both the Courts at a conclusion that the sale-deed of the land in suit was a forged document which was never executed by Sattar Muhammad respondent. This is a concurrent finding of fact against which no appeal could legally be agitated by the appellant. However in order to satisfy myself that the evidence was properly appreciated by the Courts below and that there was nothing wrong in determination of the suit, I have gone through the file myself with the help of the learned counsel for the appellant. The original sale-deed was not produced by the defendant-appellant According to him it was lost. How it was lost, nothing is made known to the Court in this respect. The scribe of the sale-deed and its marginal witnessed had not personally known the person executing the sale-deed and as such they were not able to say that the plaintiff-respondent was the same person who executed the sale-deed in question. Some other persons produced by the defendant-appellant deposed that Sattar Muhammad plaintiff-respondent was the person who executed the sale-deed but their statements cannot withstand the test of scrutiny. The man who identified the person executing the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration was no produced by the appellant. His. non-production raises a presumption against the vendee that if Karam Dad would have come to give evidence before the. Court he would have gone against the appellant. Stamp-vendor while selling Judicial Papers in question to a person had given his identification mark in his Register kept for the purpose but that mark of identification was not found on the head of Sattar Muhammad respondent before the Court. It means that purchaser of Stamp papers was someone else who pose himself for Sattar Muhammad plaintiff-respondent. Similarly the evidence appellant was critically looked into by the Courts of other witnesses of the app below with the result that their evidence was rightly reduced to naught. I do not find anything wrong in the judgments of the Courts below and the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material thing so as to adversely affect the finding given by the lower Courts. That being so I have nothing to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact and consequently dismiss this appeal with costs. S. A. H. Appeal dismissed.