1989 PLP 1390 (SCMR)

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Concurrent findings‑ Points raised were with regard to the question of facts which the Courts below had concurrently adjudicated upon and were rightly not interfered with by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of Courts below on question of fact‑‑Leave to appeal refused. S. M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mebtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. M. Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to

7. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1989. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner through this etition from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in Civil Revision No. 86/D/ 1982/BWP, whereby appeal arising out of a Muslim gift suit was dismissed. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner had asserted that his aunt Mst. Goharan wife of Bahadur Khan respondent No.l had executed the alleged gift deed regarding the disputed land measuring 28 kanals 4 marlas in his favour and its possession was delivered to the petitioner. The respondents who are the husband and minor children of Mst. Goharan tried to take possession of the disputed land from the petitioner. A declaratory suit was brought by the petitioner to the effect that he was the absolute owner of the disputed land on the basis of a gift deed and the respondents be restrained from any interference with the possession of the petitioner of the said land. The respondents denied the alleged gift deed and contested the suit. The learned trial Judge after recording evidence on contesting of issues dismissed the suit of the petitioner.. His appeal before the Addl District Judge III Bahawalpur and subsequent revision before the Lahore High Court also, failed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings of the Courts below. We do not see any merit in this petition which deserves dismissal straightaway. In support of his claim about the authenticity of the gift deed as alleged to have been validly executed on 6‑1‑1972 by Mst, Goharan Bibi, the petitioner examined Nawab Khan (P.W.1) and Ghulam Hussain (P.W.2) as marginal witnesses of the deed. Nawab Khan stated that Mst. Goharan donated her share to the petitioner and he had thumb impressed the said document. He had also admitted that the real aunt of the petitioner is his wife. Ghulam Hussain (P.W.2) had also admitted the same relationship with the petitioner and stated that the gift deed was executed in summer season. Both these marginal witnesses are interested witnesses and there is an apparent contradiction in the dates which the alleged gift deed bears i.e. 61‑1972 which falls in winter and not in summer season as stated by Ghulam Hussain (P.W‑1). p The petitioner did not produce the scribe who has written the said deed. Bahadur respondent is the husband and other respondents are the minor children of Mst.Goharan. It has not been explained why (and how it can be possible that) in the presence of such legal heirs, particularly own children, she would have gifted out her entire land to a nephew. Thus under the circumstances, we are of the view that said gift deed is not a valid one but fictitious and obtained by fraudulent manner. However, the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are with regard to the question of facts which the learned Courts below have E concurrently adjudicated upon and was rightly not interfered by the learned High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Prima facie this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below on question of fact. The result is that this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. Leave refused. M.A.K/M‑885/S