2009 PLP 224 (MLD)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

The petitioner's father purchased the disputed land, later he gifted the same to the petitioner vide registered gift deed No.1220, dated 26-4-2001. The petitioner thereafter constructed a house upon it, half portion of this property was taken over by the petitioner's real brother, who later claimed ownership qua the same. In this view of the matter, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and possession. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement pleading, inter alia, that the property was purchased from his resources and the house was constructed by him and as such was owner of the same in his own right. Of the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed, parties were put to trial and thereafter the suit in question was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed an appeal, which also was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, hence the present petition by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are not in consonance with law and record, there has been glaring misreading and non-reading of evidence, pivotal document Exh.P-2, the gift deed, dated 26-4-2001, has been concurrently ignored by both the courts below.

3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has taken exception to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and pleaded that the revision petition is not maintainable as it emanates of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below after deep appraisal of evidence and application of judicial mind, the effect and import of Exh.P-2 has been examined and deciphered in both the judgments, therefore, the instant petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as judgment of the trial Court. It goes without saying that the pivotal document Exh.P-2 was deeply examined, appraised and deciphered by both the courts below, they have given detailed findings upon the same, discussed material evidence in this context and thereafter concurrently non-suited the petitioner. It is clear from the evidence of the plaintiff that there are material contradictions in the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, and also that possession of entire property was not handed over to the plaintiff, thus the gift is incomplete.

5. As far as the question of examination of Exh.P-2 is concerned that too has been comprehensively examined and dealt with by both courts below. No material irregularity, misreading or glaring non-reading of evidence has been pointed out, all points argued at the Bar today have been comprehensively taken care of and. answered by both the courts below, there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner therefore, this petition warrants no interference and is consequently dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G-47/L Petition dismissed.