2002 PLP 3412 (YLR)

(1) Whether the gift of the suit property was validly made by the doner in favour of the defendants and Mutation No. 159 was rightly entered and attested? OPD (1‑A) If above issue is not proved, whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property and entitled to a declaratory decree alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction as sought for? OPP (2) Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi? OPD (3) Whether suit is insufficiently valued for the purposes of Court‑fee and jurisdiction, if yes what is the proper valuation? OPD (4) Whether suit is bad for mis‑joinder of parties? OPD (5) Whether plaintiff has not come in the Court with clean hands? OPD (6) Whether suit is frivolous and vexatious and defendants are entitled to compensatory costs? OPD (7) Relief. After recording evidence trial Court dismissed the suit brought by petitioner/plaintiff on 12‑7 2001. He filed appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narowal. Hence this revision petition.

3. Arguments heard.

4. The case of the petitioner is that gift Mutation (No. 159 dated 19‑3‑1996) is based on fraud and that his mother (Mst. Begum Bibi), never delivered possession to respondent, therefore, gift was not complete and mutation is liable to be cancelled. Admittedly Mst. Begum Bibi was mother of respondent, Mst. Sharifan Bibi. As mentioned above the case of the petitioner is that his mother had not transferred suit‑land in favour of respondent. The plaintiff' while appearing as P.W.1 admitted in cross‑examination that his sister (Mst. Sharifan Bibi) was living in Mohallah Puran Nagar of Sialkot City and that his mother was also buried in the graveyard of Mohallah. Puran Nagar. He also admitted that at the time of death his mother was in the house of Mst. Sharifan Bibi and that she died 2 months after the attestation of mutation of gift. It shows that his mother had been living with the respondent. Mst. Sharifan Bibi while appearing as D.W.1 stated that suit‑land was owned by her mother, Mst. Begum Bibi, who transferred the same in her favour by way of gift and she also obtained possession of suit land. D.W.2 Muhammad Rafique, D.W.3, Maqsood Ahmad and D. W.4 Muhammad Aslam have also supported the version of respondent. D. W.2 was Patwari of the village at the time of attestation of mutation whereas D.W.3 is Lumbardar. Both these D.Ws. are independent witnesses. Their statements are convincing and confidence inspiring. Admittedly suit‑land is part of joint khata, therefore, possession of a co‑sharer is possession of all the co‑sharers. Even otherwise as mentioned above respondent while appearing as D.W.1 clearly stated that she had obtained possession of suit‑land on the basis of gift. It is clear from record that the Courts below had decided case after appreciation of evidence. There is no mis reading of evidence. Likewise there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by Appellate Court. As much this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1380/L Revision dismissed.