ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

R. A. No. S – 82 of 2011

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of main case

Notice issued to advocate

27.08.2018

M/s Sardar Akbar F. Ujjan and Mehmood Ahmed Ujjan, Advocates for the applicants.

Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo, Advocate for respondents 1, 2, 3, 8 to 10.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

This civil revision application is arising out of concurrent findings of two Courts below. Applicants filed Suit No.16 of 2003 for declaration, cancellation of sale deed dated 19.01.1924, permanent injunction, possession, mesne profits etc. The property was originally owned by one Wali Muhammad Sahito. Applicants, by seeking declaration and cancellation of a subject deed, have not disputed the execution of the sale deed in respect of a part of a subject property. The applicants’ claim in the present revision only pertains to the area of survey No.61 situated in Deh Sethar Taluka Kandiaro District Nawabshah, whereas, respondents claimed to have occupied the rest of the portion of survey No.61 apart from the land which was allegedly acquired and purchased by the respondents through their vendors in pursuance of a registered instrument available at page 175 registered on 19.01.1924.

I have heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. At the very outset, this subject instrument registered on 19.01.1924 was challenged by way of a Suit in the year 2003. Although an issue as to maintainability of the Suit or it being barred by any provision of law was framed, however, neither trial Court nor appellate Court gave any findings regarding Suit being barred by time. Since the sale deed is claimed to be a registered instrument by the applicants themselves, therefore, registration of an instrument is deemed to be within the knowledge of all those parties who could have been aggrieved of it. This instrument was registered during lifetime of Wali Muhammad who never challenged it. Even during the course of the arguments, for the purposes of ending the controversy, applicants’ counsel restricted its case to the extent of remaining part of survey No.61 which was not acquired by respondents through the subject instrument. The subject instrument i.e. sale deed disclosed that eight (08) annas out of survey No.61 were enjoyed by Jam Allah Ditto and Bachal Din, whereas, rest of the eight (08) annas were owned by Chaman Das Daryno Mal. If at all, as per learned counsel for the applicants, the entire property of survey No.61 is occupied by the respondents, it is for Chaman Das Daryno Mal who could have been aggrieved of it and not the applicants who slept over their right if it was there. The subject instrument was challenged after almost eighty (80) years of its registration. No doubt, the respondents acquired the rights over the subject survey No.61 to the extent of land owned and enjoyed by Jam Allah Ditto and Bachal Din, but insofar as the rest of the land is concerned, the applicants are only strangers as they have not established beyond reasonable doubt about any relationship or interest in the property. Thus, beside Suit being barred by time, the applicants have not been able to show any case of misreading or non-reading of evidence. The sale deed was produced by applicants’ witness and hence the original was not required to be produced either by respondents or through the concerned Registrar. The vendors of the subject sale deed i.e. Jam Allah Ditto and Bachal Din acquired the property on the basis of some private partition which is deemed to be before the concerned Registrar at the time of its registration and the record was never summoned by the applicants. If at all, no bifurcation or settlement deed was executed or arrived at between the parties, it is for applicants to have summoned the record which they failed. Even otherwise, the document being more than thirty (30) years old and registered, the contents of which are deemed to be true and correct unless otherwise proved as referred above. No interference as such is required in the revision application.

These are the reasons for the short order announced today i.e. 27.08.2018.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit