1984CLC 2018 (PLP)

‑‑ S. 115 & O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Revision‑Suit by petitioner for declaration and injunction that disputed house sold to her by respon dent‑Courts below arriving at concurrent findings based on evidence that no sale agreement existed between parties ‑ Whole matter considered at length and nothing wrong found with findings- Concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below, held, cannot be challenged. Muhammad Ahmad for Applicant. This is a Revision Application filed against the Judgment of VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi dated 7‑2‑1975 and the Judgment of XV Civil Judge IInd Class dated 31‑5‑1984. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking a declaration that house on Plot No. 651/3, Liaquatabad, Karachi had been sold to her by the respondent Syed Bashirul Hasan Rizvi on 23‑1‑1966 and she was the owner of the same and that she was also in possession of the said house. It was further prayed that the ejectment obtained by the respondent against Mst. Shaista Begum in Rent Case No. 74 of 1966 had been obtained by fraud and by concealing the factum of sale. The main basis of the ease according to Mr. Muhammad Ahmad the learned. counsel for the applicant was Exh. P‑2 an agreement of sale dated 23‑1‑1966 which was alleged to have been executed by the respon dent No. I in consideration of sum of Rs. 6,

500. Evidence had been led by the parties and on the basis of that evidence the Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the signature of the respondent No. 1 on Exh. P‑2, the alleged agreement of sale, does not tally with the admitted signature of respondent No. 1 on Exhs. 7, 11, 12, 13 and 17 which were the documents produced by a Bank Official as well as by a Post Office Official and which were the documents of the two Accounts maintained by the respondent No. 1 in the Bank and Post Office. The Civil Judge had also disbelieved the two attesting witnesses to this agreement because they had contradicted themselves. One of them has stated the consideration was Rs. 6,500 and the other has stated that the consideration was Rs. 6,

000. One of them had stated that the respondent No. 1 had not put his signature on Exh. P‑2 in his presence. The Additional District Judge had also considered in detail these documents and the deposition of the witnesses and had also come to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 had not executed the alleged agreement of sale dated 23‑1‑1966 and that his alleged signature on Exh. P‑2 did not tally with the admitted signature of respondent No. 1 on Exhs. 7. 11, 12, 13 and

17. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad had submitted that these findings are in‑correct. I am afraid that the applicant is bound by the concurrent findings of the two Courts below on the fact of this c, se. The whole matter has been considered at length and I do not find anything wrong with these findings and since that main basis of the case, therefore, this appli cation deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad also argued that the view of the two Courts below that Exh. P‑2 was a sale‑deed and therefore, it required proper Stamp Duty and registration was wrong. It would be futile to note the submission of the learned counsel on this aspect of this case because once the finding in respect of the execution of Exh. P‑2 is found to be concurrent by the two Courts below then it cannot be challenged. I have also gone through the judgments of the two Courts with the learned counsel for the applicant in respect of those findings and I agree with those, findings. Therefore, there is no necessity of recording my opinion in respect of this last submission of the learned counsel. Consequently this application is dismissed and all the interim orders of stay or otherwise which have been issued in favour of the applicant are hereby vacated. H. Y. H. Application dismissed.