2001 PLP 2567 (YLR)

This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12‑5‑2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree, dated 23‑9‑2000 passed by Civil Judge, Lahore, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner‑plaintiff Rana Muhammad Ramzan filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of registered sale‑deed in the Court of Civil Judge on 7‑5‑1994. It is stated that the sale deed was the result of forgery and fabrication as some papers were got signed by defendant No.2 for the purpose of enterting into an agreement to sell which later on converted into sale‑deed and fabricated it on behalf of the petitioner‑plaintiff, and with the connivance of local commission got registered with Sub‑Registrar, Saddat, Lahore. He further stated that neither he received any consideration nor he appeared before the local commission and that he is still owner in possession of the property situated in village Sultanke, Tehsil City, District Lahore. The respondents‑defendants con tested suit. It was contended that father of respondent‑defendants was always prepared to perform his part of the agreement but it was the plaintiff himself who was not ready to perform his part of the agreement. It is stated that the petitioner‑plaintiff was putting the father of the respondents off by one excuse or the other and continued to receive the remaining consideration amount. Father of the respondents died on 3‑4‑1991. The petitioner‑plaintiff executed the sale‑deed with his free consent for valuable consideration on 7‑4‑1992 through Local Commissioner, thereafter they contacted Patwari Halqa for mutation but were informed that Khasra No.4064 alongwith other Nos. was pledged with Punjab Small Industries, and Khasra No.2541 had already been sold by the petitioner‑plaintiff. Thereupon, a Punchayat was constituted. It was decided that the petitioner‑plaintiff would get the sale‑deed corrected and would give 8 Kanals land bearing Khasra No.4078 and the respondents‑defendants would pay further sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two lacs) to the petitioner‑plaintiff for redemption from the Punjab Small Industries. The decision of the Punchayat was acted upon by the parties and as a result correction was made and executed through Local Commission. After correction of the deed petitioner‑plaintiff executed sale deed of 8 Kanals of land. The other land was also purchased by the respondents‑defendants and joint registered sale‑deed dated 13‑1‑1994 was executed by petitioner‑plaintiff in favour of the respondents‑defendants through Local Commission.

3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Issue No.5‑A was important, which is as under:‑‑ "(5‑A) Whether the signatures/thumb impressions of the plaintiff on the impugned sale‑deeds and subsequent correction deed were produced by playing fraud and the said documents are fabricated, forged, without consideration and as such are nullity in the eyes of law and not sustainable? OPP."

4. Onus of this issue was on the petitioner. To discharge the onus, petitioner plaintiff produced Muhammad Javed son of Rehmat Ali, P.W.1, Abdul Majid son of Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.2, Muhammad Ramzan himself appeared as P.W.3, and Muzaffar Ali son of Haji Farzand Ali was produced as P.W.4. All the P.Ws. have stated that there was an agreement of sale between Muhammad Ramzan and father of the respondents‑defendants. The time was taken for completion of the agreement of sale and the respondents‑defendants manoeuvred the agreement of extension of time signed by the petitioner‑plaintiff and converted the same into sale‑deed. Or behalf of respondents defendants Muhammad Idrees, Advocate appeared as D.W.1, who stated that on the application he was appointed as Local Commission. D.W.2 is Riaz Ali son of Muhammad Bashir, Patwari, who stated that on 21‑12‑1993 Fard regarding suit property was issued in favour of Muhammad Ramzan son of Abdul Ghafoor, D.W.3 is Kanwar Muhammad Aslam son 'of Noor Ahmad who stated that he was scriber of registered sale deed, Exh.P.I. He further stated that Muhammad Ramzan by receiving the amount had put his thumb‑impression and signatures on the sale‑deed. D.W.4 Syed Arif Hussain son of Syed Riaz Hussain, Advocate/Local Commission testified his report Exhs.D.3 and D.4/1 and stated that the plaintiff had put his thumb‑impressions and signatures after receiving Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two .lacs). He also stated that the correction of sale‑deed was also registered by him as Local Commissioner which is Exh.P.W.3/D.5. and the report is Exh.D.W.3/D.5/2. He also stated that Muhammad Ramzan plaintiff had put his signatures in his presence. D.W.6 Khalid Hussain is witness of the decision of the Punchayat which is Exh.D.W.6/A.

5. The learned Civil Judge while deciding the Issue No.5‑A observed that no detail of fraud has been given by the petitioner, registered deed carries presumption of truth. It can be rebutted through cogent and credit‑worthy evidence and the plaintiff has admitted that he had entered into agreement of sale with the father of the defendants and thereafter Punchayat took place about the dispute. He further observed that the plaintiff version has also been wavering. Initially the plaintiff alleged that the signatures had been obtained by fraud but while entering the witness box he refused to accept his signatures on the disputed documents. By. such, he totally denied to have signed any document. The learned Additional District Judge on Issues Nos. 5 and 5‑A has given finding:‑‑ "There is no denial of the fact that father of defendants Nos.1 and 2, namely Muhammad Hussain had entered into agreement to sell with plaintiff on 2‑5‑1990 in respect of 16 Kanals of land situated at village Sultanke, Tehsil City, District Lahore being Khasra Nos.4064, 4065, Khewat No.327 for consideration of Rs.1,60,000 out of which Rs.20,000 was paid as earnest money and the rest was to be paid within the stipulated, i.e. from 2‑5‑1990 to 2‑8‑1990 (3 months) and during that period registered sale deed was to be executed." Finally, the learned Additional District Judge concluded:‑‑ "Under the given circumstances it can safely be said that the plaintiff had misreably failed to bring solid and concrete evidence to prove his contention rather evidence produced appears to be based on mere oral assertion which was inconsistent, wavering and non‑plausible, therefore, do not inspire confidence and trustworthy on the other hand when we study oral couple with documentary evidence produced by defendants, i.e. Exh.P.W./D‑1, Exh.P.W.‑3/D‑3, Exh.D.W.‑3/D‑4 and Exh.D.W.3/D‑5 and D.W.6 Marks‑A as well as statement of D. Ws. it is evident that by producing marginal witnesses as well as local Commissioner in the witness‑box, execution of registered sale‑deeds as well as Correction Deed and decision of Punchayat was proved in accordance with law."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contents that there is finding of the learned Additional District Judge: "Admittedly there was some discrepancy and shortcoming in D. Ws. cross‑examination but the same was of minor nature and of no legal consequence and had bearing on the merits of the contention of contesting defendants." On the above stated findings the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgments of both the Courts below are vitiated.

7. I myself have reappraised the evidence of both the parties. The documentary evidence produced by the defendants Exh.D.W.3/1‑5 and Exh.D.W.6/Mark‑A shows that the registered sale‑deeds were executed and execution of the registered sale‑deed had been proved. The onus of Issue No.5‑A was on the defendants which they have successfully discharged by producing documentary evidence. When the onus was shifted to the petitioner‑plaintiff to produce that forgery had been committed, he was miserably failed to discharge the onus. Even he did not deny his signatures on the sale‑deeds mentioned above. Simple verbal statement making allegations without giving details of the fraud in the plaint cannot take the place of proof. No misreading or non reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. For the above said reason, this revision petition fails, which is dismissed in I limine with costs. H.B.T./M‑688/L Revision dismissed