2002 PLP 1391 (SCMR)

QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑The dispute in this petition for leave to appeal relates to certain landed property situated in Mouza Sher Garh, Tehsil Chaubara, District Leyyah which was sold by one Ibrahim in favour of .the respondents through a registered sale‑deed dated 17‑8‑1963. It has arisen in the circumstances that a suit was brought by the petitioners for a declaration to the effect that as legal heirs of Ibrahim they were owners of the land in dispute and the registered sale‑deed dated 17‑8‑1963 in favour of the respondents on behalf of their predecessor‑in‑interest was forged, fictitious and ineffective on their rights. The suit was resisted by the respondents mainly on the plea that the land in dispute was alienated by Ibrahim of his own free‑will and accord for consideration and for that very reason they were put in possession thereof.

2. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 2‑9‑1992 and the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Leyyah, vide judgment dated 19‑12‑1996, the judgment of the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The petitioners took the matter in revision before the High Court but without any success and hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order was the outcome of misreading and non‑reading of evidence, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court were based on inadmissible evidence, the land in dispute was Banjar and Ibrahim had shifted to Mian Channu, therefore, the petitioners had got an inkling of the claim of the respondents during one of their visits to Leyyah, the registered sale‑deed pressed into service by the respondents was forged and in absence of any counter‑report of an expert the negative report of the finger expert with regard to the thumb‑impression of Ibrahim on the sale‑deed was unquestionable. It was further contended that the execution of the sale‑deed had not been proved in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the sale transaction in favour of the respondents on behalf of Ibrahim had been admitted by some of the witnesses examined by the petitioners and this fact had also been admitted that the respondents were in possession of the land in dispute. It was also submitted that the report of the finger expert was liable to be ignored altogether. as the thumb- impression of Ibrahim affixed on a disputed document was sent for comparison with his thumb‑impression on the sale‑deed.

5. The submission's made by the learned counsel for the respondents have a definite edge over the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The registered sale‑deed was executed on 17‑8‑1963 whereas the suit giving rise to this petition was filed by the petitioners on 17‑3‑1984. Inaction on the part of the petitioners for about 20 years goes a long way to attach sanctity to the sale‑deed in question. We agree with the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court that the petitioners cannot make any mileage from the report of the finger expert as the thumb‑impression of Ibrahim affixed on a disputed power of attorney was sent to the finger expert for comparison with his thumb‑impression on the sale‑deed. The respondents are admittedly in possession of the land in dispute and this fact amply lends I support to the authenticity of the registered sale‑deed. The case of the respondents is further augmented by the admissions contained in the statements of Ch. Hashmatullah (P.W.4), son‑in‑law of Ibrahim, and Manzoor Ahmed (P.W.5), son of Ibrahim deceased. It is in the cross -examination of the former that the respondents were in possession of the land in dispute and he had learnt that the same was sold to them by his father‑in law. The admission contained in the statement of P.W.5 is to the effect that the thumb‑impression on page No. l of the sale‑deed in question appeared to be that of his father. As regards the proof of execution of the sale‑deed in question suffice it to say that the sale‑deed is a registered document and the respondents are in possession of the suit land on the basis thereof, therefore, non‑examination of its attesting witnesses is not fatal. Last but not the least, no concrete instance of misreading or non‑reading of evidence has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. For the reasons stated above, the present petition is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M‑377/S Leave refused.