BAHAWAL and others vs SAEED AKHTAR and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision and maintained the appellate court's decree in favor of the respondents. The core legal question concerns the validity and proper execution of a registered sale-deed dated 12-4-1976 through which the petitioners claimed to have purchased land from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish the lawful execution of the sale-deed, noting that their witness testimonies were contradictory and did not inspire confidence, particularly given that the petitioners were former tenants who secured the deed clandestinely. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the failure to prove the due execution of a sale-deed through reliable and consistent evidence will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any illegality, misreading of evidence, or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a sale-deed can be interfered with when the evidence produced by the claimant does not inspire confidence?
- Does the testimony of a registry official who was not posted at the time of the execution of a sale-deed suffice to prove its due execution?
- Whether contradictions in the testimonies of marginal witnesses render a sale-deed unproven?
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 2-8-1999 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Civil Revision No,430-D 1999 filed by the petitioners was dismissed maintaining the earlier determination dated 17-7-1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu.
2. ' The facts in brief, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioners purchased land measuring 120 Kanals situated in Chak No,551-TDA, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, through registered sale-deed No,1031 on 12-4-1976 from Jan Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
3. Saeed Akhtar, one of the sons of Jan Muhammad, filed a declaratory suit on 5-9-1987 taking exception to the aforesaid sale-deed. During the pendency of the suit, the other sons of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, were also impleaded in the suit under the order of the learned trial Court. Issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and the learned trial Judge through his judgment and decree dated 24-11-1990 dismissed the suit. Respondent No,1 Saeed Akhtar filed an appeal, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu, through his judgment dated 17-7-1999 and decreed the suit filed by the respondents. The petitioners filed the aforesaid civil revision before the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge through his judgment, dated 2-8-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the entire material placed on record. The pivotal point germane to this petition is, whether the sale-deed No,1031 was executed in the manner as stated by the petitioners. The reading of the evidence and the judgments impugned brings us to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioners had miserably failed in establishing the execution of the sale-deed in question. The testimony produced by them did not inspire confidence. Admittedly, the petitioners were tenants and they succeeded in securing the above sale-deed in a clandestine manner. Reliance of the learned counsel on the testimony of D.W.1 Riaz Ahmed, Moharrir Registry, would not advance the case of the petitioners as he was not posted at the time when the alleged sale-deed was executed.
5. He admitted that he could not in the circumstances say anything regarding the presence of the parties at the time of registration of sale-deed. The other marginal witnesses namely D.W.2 Ghulam Hussain and D.W.3 Noor Muhammad are also of no help to the petitioners as their testimony is contradicting each other. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has advanced cogent reasons in maintaining the determination of the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality, misreading of evidence or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
6. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.