2006 PLP 2891 (YLR)

SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.

This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 26-3-1996 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 4-2-1992 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision are that the deceased father of the respondent filed a suit for possession against the petitioner in respect of the property in dispute claiming the title therein on the basis of sale-deed dated 12-8-1961 purported to have been executed by father of the petitioner. The said suit was resisted. On the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the evidence was led. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal was filed by father of the respondent, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 26-3-1996. The matter came up before this Court in Civil Revision, which was accepted on 19-11-1991 and the case was remanded to the trial Court; and an additional issue was framed. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 4-2-1992 decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal, which failed to find favour and was dismissed vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this revision petition has also been perused.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale-deed on the basis whereof the respondents claimed title is invalid and inoperative in law on two grounds. Firstly, the executant of the sale-deed i.e. father of the present petitioner, at the time of the execution of the said document was of unsound mind, therefore, could not enter into the transaction to alienate his property. Consequently, the transaction as well as the sale-deed in question in invalid. Secondly the transaction is violative of MLR-64 inasmuch as the property, the subject-matter of the sale was less than a subsistence holding.

5. Learned counsel for the respon?dents controverts the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has further submitted that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hold that a transaction of sale or the sale-deed was violative of MLR 64, which even otherwise had been declared to be unislamic and did not hold the field at the time of passing of the impugned appellate judgment and decree.

6. Regarding the mental health of the executant of the sale-deed in question the vital evidence available on the record is the statement of Dr. Muhammad Arshad Chaudhary of Mental Hospital who stated that the executant i.e. father of the petitioner was suffering from Schizophrenia and was admitted in the Mental Hospital on 24-9-1964. He has stated that according to history of the said executant, he was suffering from Schizophrenia for about three years prior to his admission in the Mental Hospital. It may be noted here that the "history" is information about the previous health of a patient, which is provided by his attendant/close relative of the patient to the doctor at the time of his admission in the hospital; and is not an expert opinion of a doctor. Furthermore, the date of the sale-deed i.e. 12-8-1961 is more than three years prior to the admission of the executant in the Mental Hospital. Besides, the petitioner himself filed a suit against the father of the respondent and his own father, who had been impleaded as a sane person and it was not indicated that he was of unsound mind. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 2-6-1985.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Rahmat Khan, father of the petitioner was not an insane person at the time of execution of the sale-deed in favour of the father of the respondents. The aforesaid finding was affirmed in appeal by the first appellate A Court vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree. The said finding of fact is not arbitrary or capricious or based on non-reading and misreading of evidence. The petitioner is seeking reappraisal of the evidence on the record, which is not possible in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the said ground of finding of fact.

8. With reference to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale-deed in question was violative of MLR-64, suffice it to say that a transaction in violation MLR-64, could B only be set aside by the authorities mentioned therein and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in this behalf. I am fortified in my view by the judgment reported as Sadiq Ali v. Taj Din and others (PLD 1992 Lahore 158), Nasir Ahmad Khan v. Mst. Ismat Jehan Begum (1968 SCMR 667) and Mst. Aisha Bibi v. Nazir Ahmad and 10 others (1994 SCMR 1935).

9. In view of the foregoing, no case for interfering in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below has been made out. There is no irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, consequently, this petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. S.A.K./N-80/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.