KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus HAROON

This revision application has been filed against the judgment and decree of Ist Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, in Civil Appeal No.57 of 1973 dated 31‑3‑1976, by which the decree and judgment in Civil Suit No.116 of 1968 was set aside.

2. The relevant facts are that on 30‑1‑1968 a suit was filed by Khan Muhammad for declaration that he was the owner of half share of survey No.139 in Deh Bhiria, Taluka Naushahro Feroze, Nawab Shah, which he had taken by private arrangements in exchange for half portion of Survey No.444 in the same Deh, which he had purchased on 26‑6‑1959 by registered sale deed from Mst. Ladan and her husband Haroon. He also sought injunction, as his possession was being interfered with by the respondents. The respondents denied the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that they had not sold the land to Khan Muhammad but had only leased out half share of survey No.439 to Khan Muhammad for 8/9 years. It was further asserted by them that in accordance with the arrangement or private partition between the heirs of Suleman deceased, the half share of survey No.444 had been given to his daughter Mst. Nooran, who had continued to be in possession of the same and that half share in survey No. 439 was given to the other daughter Mst. Ladan.

3. Issues were framed by the Court, most important of which was whether the sale deed had been executed by Mst. Ladan.

The original Court decreed the suit on 30/9/1972 and declared that half share of Survey No. 444 was exchanged with half share of survey No.439 and therefore, injunction was issued against the respondents from interfering with possession of plaintiff's share in Survey No.439.

4. In the appeal the learned Additional District Judge, after reviewing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the execution of the sale deed in respect of Survey No.444 by Mst. Ladan and her husband had not been effectively proved by the plaintiff Khan Muhammad and he further held that it was only lease of 8/9 years, which had been given to Khan Muhammad by Mst. Ladan and her husband Haroon and therefore, Khan Muhammad was in possession of half share of Survey No‑439 as a lessee and had the land revenue receipts in his favour. On this basis the right of Khan Muhammad as owner of Survey No.439 or of 444 was negatived and the judgment and decree of the lower court was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

Mr. A.R. Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, had submitted that the judgment of the appellate Court was based on misreading of evidence. I have allowed Mr. A.R Kazi to read the deposition of Mst. Ladan and of Haroon before me. I find that nowhere Mst. Ladan was confronted with the alleged sale‑deed that it was executed by her nor Haroon was confronted with the same and this being the position, it could not be said that the finding in respect of the sale deed not A having been executed by Mst. Ladan or Haroon is in any way wrong. This being the position, there is no justification for interfering with the judgment of the lower appellate Court and therefore, this revision application is dismissed. Mr. Muhammad Saleh Memon, learned counsel for the respondent, had supported the findings of the Appellate Court.

H . B . T . / K‑57 / K Revision Dismissed.