1995 PLP 488 (SCMR)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Respondent Mst. Mussarat Begum claims to be the owner of house in dispute and according to her, she went to Karachi, locked that house and handed over the key to the petitioner to look after it as there were household articles and other valuable things in it. When she came back she saw the petitioner living in the house who declared that she had sold the house to him for Rs.15,000 vide registered sale‑deed dated 15‑4‑1977. Respondent filed suit for cancellation of the said sale‑deed and possession. Petitioner claimed in the written statement that Mst. Mussarat Begum had sold the house and put him in possession and sale‑deed was registered before the Sub‑Registrar where she appeared. Issues were framed and evidence was produced by both parties. Finally the suit was decreed against the defendant/petitioner, who filed appeal which was dismissed and then filed revision which is also dismissed by the High Court.

2. Petitioner has lost before three forums and findings against him are concurrent. It is contended on his behalf that evidence on the record has been misread and particularly evidence and report of Finger Print Bureau, which proves that sale‑deed Exh. P‑1 was correctly thumb‑marked by the respondent and there was enough evidence on the record to show that he had purchased the property in question for value in a genuine transaction.

3. Issue No. 1 in the suit is whether registered sale‑deed is based on fraud and without consideration and is liable to be cancelled. It appears that a criminal case was filed against the petitioner for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, 380, 406, 467 and 109, P.P.C. in which the original sale‑deed was produced. P.W.3 Muhammad _Rafiq, Record Clerk produced the record of criminal case. Thumb marks of Mst. Mussarat Begum were sent to Finger Print Expert alongwith thumb marks on the original sale‑deed. The Expert gave report that impressions marked as Exh. P‑A/1, Exh. P‑A/4 and Exh. P‑A/5 on the sale‑deed are identical with right hand thumb‑impression of Mst. Mussarat Begum but impressions marked as Exh. P‑A/2 and Exh. P‑A/3 on the same sale‑deed have been tampered with by putting other impressions over each of them to evade identification. However, both imposed and superimposed impressions are not clear enough to permit of a comparison in their minute detail. Expert finally gave the finding that thumb‑impressions of Mst. Mussarat Begum before the Sub‑Registrar on the sale‑deed were not proved. P.W. 5 Zaka Malik, Handwriting Expert stated that thumb impressions against Entry No. 9072 dated 15‑4‑1977 in the register was not made by Mst. Mussarat Begum.

4. Petitioner in the trial Court produced Mirza Mehmood Beg as D.W. 1 as marginal witness of the sale‑deed. He deposed in the Court that Mst. Mussarat Begum received Rs.10,000 from the petitioner before Sub‑Registrar and executed the sale‑deed. She filed application under Order 18, Rule 17 C.P.C. for recall of this witness for the reason that another person was produced in the Court as Mirza Mehmood Beg. Father of Mirza Mehmood Beg appeared in the Court and stated that his son is alive but he did not know his address. Petitioner did not produce Mirza Mehmood Beg again in the Court. D.W.4 Khawaja Muhammad Yousuf deposed before the trial Court that he identified Mst. Mussarat Begum before the Sub‑Registrar and she executed sale‑deed by affixing her thumb‑impressions. In cross‑examination he admitted that he did not know the lady before and also did not know whether her father had died. In view of such evidence, trial Court concluded that sale‑deed was not genuine document and decreed the suit.

5. We are of the view that there has been no misreading of evidence which is properly assessed by the three Courts below, whose findings are concurrent and against the petitioner. No ground is made out for interference and, therefore, leave is refused and this petition is dismissed as it has no merits. AA./S‑885/S Leave refused.