WALI MUHAMMAD Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD

ORDER

Wali Muhammad petitioner has assailed the appellate judgment and decree dated 7‑12‑1996 upholding the dismissal of the suit of the petitioner by the learned Civil Judge on 1‑4‑1996.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Wali Muhammad petitioner filed a declaratory suit against the respondents on the grounds that he was own of land mentioned in the head note of the plaint; respondents had no concern whatsoever with the same; registered sale‑deed bearing No.602 dated 26‑11‑1957, Mutation No. l attested on 2‑10‑1958 on behalf of the petitioner in favour of Imam Din, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents and inheritance mutation bearing No.432 attested on 25‑7‑1975 were against law, facts, without consideration fictitious, based on fraud and, thus, ineffective qua the rights of the petitioner. Decree for perpetual injunction was also solicited to the effect that the petitioner was owner of the suit property and respondents had no concern whatsoever with the same; respondents be restrained to assert any right qua the suit property. The suit was resisted by the respondents which gave rise to the framing of following "issues: ‑‑

(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner of suit Khasra No.8/4‑12? OPP

(2) Whether the registered sale‑deed No.602 dated 26‑5‑1957 and mutation No.432 dated 25‑7‑1975 are illegal, null, void, against law and facts, without consideration, based on fraud, as such ineffective/inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.

(3) Whether the suit is within time? OPD.

(4) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious, as such, defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35‑A, C.P.C.? OPD.

(5) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule C.P.C.? OPD.

(6) Whether the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit land to Imam Din, defendant and he executed impugned sale‑deed in favour of the defendants? OPD.

(7) Relief.

3. Learned Civil Judge after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, dismissed the suit of the petitioner against which his appeal was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have mis‑read the evidence on record in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim.

5. I have heard the learned counsel at length. P.W.2 Muhammad Saddi stated during his cross‑examination that at the time of execution of sale‑deed he was only 16 years old and he did not know as to how much lease amount was being taken by the petitioner. Similarly, P.W.3 Hakam Ali stated that he had heard from the inmates of 173/EB, about the information deposed by him in the Court. P. W.1 Wali Muhammad petitioner stated that he had given possession of the suit property to Imam Din, father of respondents and himself initially went to Sahiwal and thereafter Multan in connection with his service. He also stated that about 25/26 years, he remained away from the suit property. During cross-examination, he categorically stated that since very beginning, the suit property was in possession of the respondents. The evidence of the petitioner is neither cogent nor confidence‑inspiring as compared to that of the respondents. Registered sale‑deed could not be held to be forged or fictitious without strong rebuttal thereof. The petitioner has failed to establish that the sale‑deed executed in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents was fictitious.

6. The sale‑deed was executed on 26‑5‑1957 and Mutation No.432 was attested on 25‑7‑1975. Respondent was in possession of the land in his own right on the basis of the title mentioned above. Petitioner was never in possession of the property since very beginning as admitted by himself. The perusal of the evidence clearly shows that the petitioner was in knowledge of the impugned sale‑deed, dated 20‑5‑1957 since 1957 and the suit filed by him in the year 19921 was clearly barred by limitation. The finding of the Courts below treating the suit of the petitioner as barred by time is based on valid reasons and call for not interference. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are supported by the evidence on record. No legal error or material irregularity has been shown by the petitioner in the impugned judgment.

7. For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed in limine.

A.A./W‑16/L Petition dismissed.