Abdul Majeed (deceased) through his Legal Heir, etc. vs Mst, Zatoon Bibi, etc
This matter arises from a civil dispute concerning the possession of a house comprised in a four marla plot, subject to competing suits for possession and declaration filed by the respondent and the petitioners respectively. The core legal questions involved the validity and due execution of a registered sale-deed and whether it was vitiated by fraud, forgery, or being fictitious. The Trial Court dismissed the respondent's suit and decreed that of the petitioners. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision and decreed the respondent's suit, a finding subsequently maintained by the High Court in regular second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court and the High Court were well-based, noting that the respondent had successfully discharged the initial onus regarding the due execution of the registered sale-deed, which carried a presumption of correctness, while the petitioners failed to discharge their onus to prove forgery or to get the disputed signatures compared. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Whether a registered sale-deed carries a presumption of correctness regarding its execution?
- Does the failure to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures create a presumption in favor of the opposing party?
- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court and the High Court be interfered with without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
FALAK SHER, J.--- Mst. Zatoon Bibi respondent having filed a suit against the -petitioners and late Muhammad Shafie brother of petitioner No 1 on 9.10.1989 seeking retrieval of the suit precincts possession comprising a house raised on 4 merles plot having been acquired from late Abdul Ghafoor second husband of her mother while she was a minor through registered sale-deed dated 24.6.1989, of which she was forcibly dis-possessed by the petitioners, was confronted with the latters' declaratory suit on 27.11.1989 with a consequential relief that the banked upon sale-deed of the respondent was forged, fictitious, fabricated, collusive and in-effective.
2. Civil Judge, Ferozwala District Sheikhupura seized of the lis consolidating both the suits, framing 19 issues out of the pleadings of the parties inter a/ia answering the crucial issues 12 and 16 reproduced herein below:-- "12. Whether Mst. Zatoon Bibi is bona fide purchaser with consideration without notice? If so, its effect? OP Mst. Zaitoon Bibi.
16. Whether sale-deed No. 5244, dated 24.6.1989 is fictitious, forged, collusive, illegal, against facts and is result of fraud? OP Plaintiffs Suit No. 646/1?" against the respondent dismissing her suit decreed that of the petitioners on 11.10.1992.
3. However, on appeal an Additional 'District Judge, Ferozwala reversing the findings decreed the respondents' suit dismissing that of the petitioners on 24.11.1996, which was maintained by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court turning down petitioners' RSA No. 32 of 1996 vide the impugned order dated 13.5.2003 opining as under:-- "It is pertinent to point out that on the back of Ex.P1 the signatures alongwith the identity card number and the thumb impression are available on the back of the registered sale-deed which have neither been challenged 'nor been alleged as forged in the statement of Mian Shaukat A.I, Advocate as being fictitious and forged one. Meaning thereby that the respondents have admitted the signatures of Abdul Ghafoor as being correct and of Abdul Ghafoor.. I say so because the fact that during whole of the proceedings the present respondents have not bothered to get those signatures compared with the signatures of the deceased admitted in nature, hence a strong presumption about the correctness of those signatures is taken in favour of the present appellant and against the respondents. After considering the depositions of other witnesses and the evidence on the record the learned Appellate Court noted the admitted position that mother of Mst. Zatoon Bibi had been married to Abdul Ghafoor when Mst. Zatoon Bibi was only 4 years of age and that Abdul Ghafoor till his death had been living in the suit house. It was observed that Ex.P.1 was neither fictitious nor forged or fabricated document. It may be noted that onus of issue No. 16 to prove sale-deed dated 24.6.1989 as fictitious, forged and collusive was upon the appellants/defendants. No attempt was made by them for the comparison of signatures/thumb impression of Abdul Ghafoor with any of his undisputed signature or thumb impression such as identity card, etc. By producing the Local Commissioner namely Mian Shaukat A.I, Advocate PW.1 and Muhammad Rafique PW:2 initial onus about due execution of Ex.P.1 was discharged by Mst.
Zatoon Bibi which remained unrebutted. This is besides the fact that a registered document carries some sort of presumption in its favour. Reliance of the appellants/defendants on mere old age and death of Abdul Ghafoor the same day when Ex.P.1 was registered was ipso facto not enough to discredit the evidence and the document. No cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the appellants qua issue No. 16. Appreciation of the evidence thus undertaken by the First Appellate Court and conclusion drawn are absolutely justified. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants thus in the circumstances are devoid of merit and untenable.
4. Against which leave to appeal is being sought, wherein the learned counsel despite the query could nether. Dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below nor point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any question of law of public importance meriting interference, being well-based.
5. Resultantly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed leave declined. .