1984 PLP 1013 (SCMR)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑ Art. 185 (3) ‑ Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42 ‑ Suit for declaration and/or possession of suit land on grounds that plaintiff Petitioner being owner in possession sale of such land, on his behalf in favour of defendants‑respondents through registered sale‑deed was collusive, fraudulent and without consideration‑Trial Court dismissing suit‑Appeal before District Judge and revision before High Court also dismissed‑Contentions raised, against judgment and order of High Court found to be without substance‑Leave to appeal refused. Q. Abdur Rashid and Karam S. Bhatti for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 12th February, 1984. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑By this petition leave is sought t0 appeal against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Circuit, dated 14th May, 1983, passed in Civil Revision No. 148 of 1982.

2. Badri Zaman, petitioner, instituted a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Mansehra for declaration and in the alternative, for possession of the land to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the same and the sale of the suit property, on his behalf, in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 the registered sale‑deed, dated 20‑2‑1954 was collusive, fraudulent and without consideration. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge and appeal filed before the learned District Judge was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Revision which was dismissed in limine by the learned High Court vide the impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel and considered his contention and we find no substance in them. His main contention is that the defendants did not produce the original deed but only a certified copy the certified document would not be admissible when the primary evidence o the document itself was not produced by the defendant despite the fact that the original document was lying with him that in the circumstances of the case a presumption arises that the criminal deed is not a sale‑deed but a faked sale‑deed has been copied out instead by the concerned clerk in the office of Sub‑Registrar. Learned counsel for the respondents also produced Photostat copy of the sale‑deed, dated 20‑2‑1954. This document was registered and entered in the office of the Sub‑Registrar, Mansehra. The argument that this is a fictitious document is belied by the very fact that the witnesses who had identified the respondent before the Sub‑Registrar, were not called nor the Clerk the Sub‑Registrar's office, who had entered and registered the docu ment, as sent for by the petitioner. Moreover, the said entry in the Revenue record was made when the aforesaid document was registered but the peti tioner challenged neither the entry in the revenue record nor brought a suit for cancellation of the aforesaid registered sale‑deed. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is accordingly, dismissed.