2008 PLP 1318 (SCMR)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal from judgment, dated 12-11-2002, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revision No.1213/D of 2001.

2. Late Ibrahim alias Labboo, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Lodharan, calling in question the validity of gift mutation No.945, dated 8-1-1983 purported to have been executed by him in favour of the petitioners for the transfer of suit land measuring 36 Kanals. He also challenged subsequent mutation No.946, dated 8-1-1983 by the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 8 to the extent of 2 Kanals. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondents by judgment and decree, dated 19-9-2000 after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties. The respondents preferred an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Lodhran, and the suit of the respondents was decreed, by judgment and decreed dated 19-10-2001. Therefore, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No.1213 of 2001 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, by the impugned judgment and decree, dated 12-11-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the High Court had mis-appreciated the evidence on record which caused failure of justice. The trial Court had not framed the issues according to the divergent pleadings of the parties. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was based on misreading and non-reading of material evidence on record. The petitioners were in possession of the suit land as a result of the gift by late Ibrahim alias Labboo, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. It was lastly contended that the validity of gift mutation No.945, the subject matter of the civil suit had been duly' proved by the petitioners and the civil suit of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was rightly dismissed by the trial Court which ought not have been interfered with by the District Judge.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that after the deposition of late Ibrahim alias Labboo as P.W. 1 denying the making of gift of the suit land to the petitioners, it was for the petitioners to discharge the onus of the validity of the gift and mutation No.945 in their favour. None of the witnesses mentioned in the gift mutation were produced by the petitioner. Rather the respondents were able to produce Muhammad Sharif P.W.4 who was recorded as a witness to the mutation No.945 in question. He categorically stated that late Ibrahim had not given any land to the petitioners nor did he identify him at that time. He further stated that the petitioners had got the mutation in question sanctioned in a fraudulent manner. The petitioners did not produce any revenue official/officer concerned with the sanction of the mutation in dispute to prove the same. The learned counsel could not point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record by the Additional District Judge or by the High Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. S.A.K./A-97/SC Leave refused.