2018 M L D 1333
[Balochistan (Turbat Bench)]
Before Abdullah Baloch, J
MUHAMMAD HANIF ---Petitioner
Versus
SERAJ AHMED and 2 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No.T -37 of 2017, decided on 15th January, 2018.
Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Art. 79---Suit for declaration ---Document, proof of ---Procedure---Contention of plaintiff
was that he had purchased suit land through sale deed---Suit was dismissed concurrently ---
Validity ---Plaintiff had failed to produce any marginal witness of alleg ed sale deed as well as
any owner from whom land in question was purchased---Alleged sale deed was not exhibited
to be taken into consideration---Witnesses produced by the plaintiff were neither marginal witnesses nor sale proceedings had been carried out in their presence---Alleged sale- deed was
not attested by any Oath Commissioner or Notary Public to verify the contents of the same ---
Plaintiff, in circumstances, had failed to prove his case through cogent and inspiring evidence ---Judgments and decrees pa ssed by the Courts below did not suffer from any mis -
reading and non- reading of evidence---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in
the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below ---Revision was dismissed
in limine.
Rahm Dil Ba loch for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 8th December, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---This judgment disposes of instant civil revision
petition filed by the petitioner Muhammad Hanif against the judgment and decree dated 15th June 2017 (hereinafter re ferred as, "impugned judgment and decree") passed by the learned
Qazi Panjgur (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court") and judgment and decree dated 28th September 2017 (hereinafter as, "impugned judgment and decree") passed by the learned Majlis -e-Shoora, Panjgur (hereinafter referred, "the appellate Court"), whereby the suit and
appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts arising from the instant petition are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit
for declaration, injunction and cancel lation of sale deed executed between the
respondents/defendants Nos.1 and 2 with the averments that the suit land was purchased by the petitioner/ plaintiff, 33 years ago on 1st May 1982 from Muhammad Noor, Rahem Dil, Dur Bibi, Noor Malik sons and daughter s of Karam on sale consideration of Rs.20,000/ -
through an executed sale deed.
3. The suit of the petitioner described the boundaries of the suit land and further
submitted that some portion of land of petitioner was sold out by respondent No.2 to
responde nt No.1 illegally and unlawfully without the consent and knowledge of petitioner,
whereupon the respondent No.1 has started encroachment, as such, on coming to know the petitioner approached the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, but all in vain. Consequently, above civil suit was filed.
4. The suit of the petitioner was contested by the private respondents on legal as well as
on factual grounds by means of filing written statement, wherein vehemently denied the
claim of the petitioner.
5. Out of the pleading of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as following
issues;
"1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable legal objection 1 and 2 is
raised by the defendants in the written statement?"
2. Whether the plaintiff purchased the disputed property through sale deed?
3. Whether the disputed property description given in the plaint is the property of
the plaintiff?
4. Whether the defendant (1) purchased the disputed property from the defendant
(2) and started construction there upon?
5. Whether the defendant illegally encroached onto the property of the plaintiff?
6. Whether the disputed property is the property of the state (Revenue
department)
7. Relief?"
6. Thereafter the parties have produced their relevant evidence. After hearing the parties
the suit of the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal against the said judgment and decree, which was also met the same fate.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below suffers from misreading and non- reading of evidence; that the
petitioner has produced oral as well as documentary evidence with regard to his ownership, but both the Courts below were failed to appreciate this aspect of the case. On rebuttal, the respondents have failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to their ownership, but the learned trial Court given weight to evidence of respondents, whi ch at all are not
admissible under the law; that the judgments and decrees of Courts below also suffers from material illegalities and irregularities, which are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record minutely which
reveals that the petitioner/ plaintiff has claimed to be owner of the disputed land, which was allegedly purchased by from Muhammad Noor, Rahm Dil, Noor Bibi, Dur Malik sons and daughter of Karam on sale consideration of Rs.20,000/ - on 1st May 1982 and in this regard
also executed a sale deed.
9. To prove its case the petitioner/ plaintiff produced as many as three PWs and also
recorded his own statement, but it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has failed to
produce any marginal witness of the alleged sale deed as required under section 79 of C.P.C. and even otherwise, failed to exhibit the alleged sale deed to be taken into consideration and also failed to produce any of the owner from which the land in que stion was purchased by the
petitioner. However, perusal on record reflects that the PWs so produced by the petitioner are neither the marginal witness of the sale deed nor the sale proceedings have been carried out in their presence. While the alleged sale deed has not been attested by any Oath Commissioner
or Notary Public to verify the contents of sale deed.
10. In view of the above, the petitioner/ plaintiff has failed to prove its case through
cogent, inspiring evidence to believe that the suit land was infact purchased by him from the
owner of the suit land. Even otherwise, the suit land is unsettled land and could not be
presumed to be purchased by the petitioner from someone else without any documentary
evidence.
11. The perusal of judgment and decree s passed by the Courts below does not suffer from
any misreading and nonreading, material illegality and irregularity to be interfered by this
Court and the error so committed by the learned trial Court was rectified by the appellate Court, as such, the le arned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality and
irregularity, misreading and nonreading in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, which are accordingly maintained and the petition is devoid of merit and here by dismissed in liminee.
ZC/29/Bal Revision dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.