2005 PLP 1295 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

Mst. Nasreen Akhtar respondent filed a suit in the Court of a learned Senior Civil Judge at Ferozewala seeking a declaration that she was the owner of the suit-land measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas and that a sale-deed 8-9-1988 allegedly executed by Shahbaz respondent in favour of Muhammad Anwar respondent and the subsequent sale-deed executed by Muhammad Anwar respondent in favour of Dr. Ijaz Ahmad petitioner was illegal and ineffective against the rights of the said plaintiff-respondent. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court through a judgment and decree dated 30-5-1994 which judgment and decree was reversed by the Appellate Court through a judgment, dated 2-6-1996 whereby the said suit filed by Mst. Nasreen respondent was decreed. The present petitioner questioned the said appellate judgment and decree before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No.2002/D of 1996 which was dismissed through a judgment dated 2-4-2002.

2. Hence this petition by Dr. Ijaz Ahmad, defendant.

3. Since the judgments of the two subordinate Courts were at variance, the learned Judge in Chambers examined the entire evidence in depth and affirmed the findings reached by the learned Appellate Judge. In reaching the said conclusions, the learned Single Bench was influenced by the fact that it was not in dispute that Shahbaz respondent was a co-owner of the suit-land who held a general power of attorney from his mother, his sister and his brother with respect to the property in-question. It had also been found by the learned High Court that one of the two surviving marginal witnesses of the sale-deed executed in favour of Mst. Nasreen, namely, Miraj Din (P.W.2) had fully supported Mst. Nasreen, plaintiff. The scribe of the said sale-deed, namely, Ghulam Haider (P.W.3) had also appeared in support of the suit and had deposed that the parties had put their signatures on the said sale-deed in his presence. The learned Judge went to the extent of personally examining the signatures of Shahbaz respondent on the sale-deed in question (Exh.P.1) and comparing the same with the admitted signatures of the said Shahbaz, found that the signatures of Shahbaz appearing on the sale-deed in question were those of the said Shahbaz. The learned Judge also took note of the submission of the present petitioner that Shahbaz had not been confronted with the sale-deed in question (Exh.P.1) and found that since Shahbaz had not denied his signatures on the said document, therefore, there was no need to put the same to Shahbaz respondent in view of the provisions of Article 145 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The submission regarding Dr. Ijaz Ahmad petitioner being a bona fide purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration was also examined by the learned High Court but was decided against him.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also examined the record in the light of the submissions made by him. The learned counsel could not show any infirmity, legal for factual, in the impugned judgment or the reasons which had led the High Court in reaching the impugned conclusions.

5. The impugned judgment is, therefore, not open to any exception. This petition is consequently. dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./I-91/S Petition dismissed.