2025 PLP 1217 (YLR)

MASUD ABID NAQVI, J.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this lis are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the instant suit of declaration on 01.08.2009 against her nephews/ defendants Nos.1 to 4 and brother/ defendant No.5 with the averments that she being the daughter of Ghulam Qadir deceased is entitled to inherit 1/6 share from the estate of her late father and gift deed No.493 dated 12.01.1977 in favour of defendants Nos.1 to 4, exchange mutation No.1559 dated 31.07.1997 and gift deed No.106 dated 19.09.2000 in favour of defendant No.5 are transactions which are not only illegal, unlawful but fraudulent having no legal effect because due to old age and being a chronic patient, her father was not in proper mental and physical conditions. The defendants raised legal as well as factual objections by filing contested written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 03.03.2022. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an appeal and learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2024 dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant civil revision and challenged the validity of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below.

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely gone through the record as well as the impugned judgments and decrees.

3. There is no denial of the facts that Ghulam Qadir deceased died on 05.11.2005 but neither he or petitioner nor other daughters of Ghulam Qadir deceased challenged these transactions before the death of Ghulam Qadir deceased. Even the petitioner has not impleaded her rest of sisters as parties to the suit. The petitioner/plaintiff's nephews/beneficiaries of gift deed No.493 dated 12.01.1977/Ex.P-1/Ex.D-1, were minors at the time of gift transaction, even conceded by petitioner/PW-1 in cross- examination (2020 SCMR 214) and the husband of petitioner namely Mohammad Hussain became part of transaction as Mohtabar Donee while mutation No.1559/Ex:P-2/Ex.D-5 was entered/sanctioned on 31.07.1997 and on same day, mutation No.1561 was also entered/sanctioned by Ghulam Qadir deceased in favour of petitioner's husband but the same has not been challenged by the petitioner. Although the petitioner pleaded not only old age and bad health of her father but also alleged fraud committed with him with regard to all these transactions but neither proved her father's physical or mental incapacity/incapability through strong oral as well documentary evidence nor the allegation of fraud. The petitioner who asserted fraud in the commission of transactions has/had to prove the same. Provision of Order VI Rule 4 C.P.C. mandates the mention of detail particulars of the fraud. Mere vague assertion of the petitioner/plaintiff that a fraud had been practiced upon her and she had/have been deprived of her share in estate of her deceased father without narrating full particulars of fraud in the pleadings, the circumstances in which the fraud was committed and without a positive attempt on her part to substantiate the same to the satisfaction of the court, was/is no consequence rather would be considered as whimsical attribution. Reliance is placed on judgments reported as 1988 SCMR 1703, PLD 2002 SC 500, 2009 SCMR 70 and 2023 SCMR

419. The petitioner appeared as PW-1 and conceded the minority of her nephews/ defendants Nos. 1 to 4, their possession on the disputed land, no reason was/is deposed for such a delayed start of litigation and even acknowledged the transactions which is reproduced hereunder;

4. With respect to interference in concurrent findings, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported as Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Muhammad (2012 SCMR 730) held that:- "Concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court in favour of appellants were based on proper appreciation of evidence therefore, the same were not open to interference by the revisional court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. which is primarily meant for correction of jurisdictional defect/error and material illegalities/ irregularities, resulting in miscarriage of justice to a party." In the present case, no such defects have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to seek interference by this Court. Learned Courts below have meticulously examined the entire evidence of the parties and thereafter reached at the conclusion regarding the controversy. Neither any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record nor any infirmity, legal or factual, has been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, therefore, this civil revision is, hereby, dismissed in limine. MQ/S-14/L Revision dismissed.