2004 PLP 1157 (SCMR)

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Ch. Ghulam Rasool, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Ozair Chughtai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th June, 2003. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 20‑2‑2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which second appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur, dated 30‑9‑2000 of acceptance of appeal of the respondents has been dismissed.

2. The dispute in the civil suit was whether Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din, allottee‑predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents had executed sale‑deed in respect of evacuee land in dispute allotted to him in village Ram Parshad, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara.

3. The case of the respondents was that Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din, deceased their predecessor‑in‑interest against whose land in India, the land in dispute was allotted had died in 1947, therefore, the sale‑deed executed in 1968 under which the present petitioners claimed to have purchased the land was a forged document. The learned Additional District Judge recorded findings of facts that Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din had died much before 1948 therefore, could not execute the sale‑deed as such the said deed on which reliance was placed by the petitioners to claim purchase of land from the said allottee was a forged and fictitious document, as such, did not create any right in their favour or adversely affected the ownership rights of the heirs. of Muhammad Ramzan which findings have been upheld by the learned Judge of the High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 20‑2‑2002 against which leave is sought.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din was allotted land in Chak No.48/3‑R, Okara, against his land left in India whereas the land in dispute in village Ram Parshad, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara was allotted to Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din but the said allottee was a different person and the land had been allotted against a different claim form.

5. We have gone through the pleadings and find that in paragraph‑I of the plaint, the respondents expressly pleaded that their predecessor in‑interest namely Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din was allotted land in dispute in village Ram Parshad and they being his heirs had right of ownership against which the petitioners in the corresponding paragraph of the written statement clearly stated that so far as Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din as mentioned in paragraph‑I of the plaint being the allottee of the land was admitted but whether the respondents were his legal heirs, the same was denied on account of want of knowledge. In paragraph‑2 of the plaint, the respondents clearly pleaded that the land of Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din through mutation of inheritance, dated 16‑5‑1956, was transferred to them; was also denied for want of knowledge. It appears that the petitioners' case before the trial Court was that the said Muhammad Ramzan allottee died after the execution of the sale‑deed and not about the identity of the allottee. An application was made for production of additional evidence by producing another copy of RL‑11 whereby Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din was shown to have allotted land in Chak No. 48/3‑R, Okara to contend that the Claim Form of both the RL‑Its of both the villages were different. The learned Judge of the High Court has rightly observed that nothing turns on this because the land in one village was allotted to Muhammad Ramzan son of Imajm Din against his full ownership rights in the land left in India whereas in Village Ram Parshad, he was allotted land against his Maroosi Rights therefore, the different claim numbers were mentioned. We have compared both the documents and find that claimant in both is the same person, therefore, in the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioners to defend their title on the basis of sale‑deed executed in 1968 about the whereabouts and identity of Muhammad Ramzan son of Imam Din if he was different person as is being argued, findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are perfectly in accordance with law no part of which has been shown to have been misread.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M‑905/S Leave refused.