1990 PLP 393 (SCMR)

Q. M. Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions). Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑These two petitions for leave to appeal have arisen from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11‑1‑1986, whereby Civil Revisions Nos. 275‑D and 276‑D of 1983 of the petitioners were dismissed. This order will dispose of both these petitions as the question for consideration in both is same. Ali Muhammad owner of a house No. 205 and shop No. 224 both situated in Kehror Pacca, Tehsil Lodran, District Multan, had three sons namely, Muhammad Shafi, Abdul Majeed, Abdus Salam and two daughters Mst. Hajran and Zubaida. Ali Muhammad vide gift deed dated 31‑12‑1970 gifted away both the properties in dispute to Abdul Majeed and Abdul Salam. Two separate suits were brought by the plaintiffs/respondents for the partition of the disputed shop and house against the defendants/petitioners, after the death of their father Ali Muhammad. Both the suits were contested by the defendants/petitioners on the ground that the disputed shop and house were gifted by their father to them vide gift deed dated 31‑12‑1970. Both the suits after contest were dismissed by the Civil Judge, Lodran vide separate judgments dated 30‑1‑1983. While in separate appeals the learned Additional District Judge, Multan decreeing the suits of the plaintiffs/respondents held that they are entitled to inherit 4/8th share of the property in dispute and thus preliminary decree was passed vide orders dated 6‑4‑1983. Civil Revisions Nos. 275‑D and 276‑D of 1983 were preferred by the petitioners in the Lahore High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide his order dated 11‑1‑1986 dismissed both the revisions. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions vehemently contended that the written Tamleeknama in favour of the petitioners was duly proved by, the marginal witnesses and the respondents failed to disprove the document. The possession of the petitioners over the disputed house and shop was in the knowledge of the respondents which proves the execution of the Tamleeknama and thus their suit was also time‑barred. The two Courts below have properly scrutinized the authenticity of the document. The learned Single Judge of the High Court observed that "a cursory glance on this document shows that the date appears to have been interpolated in the original document and the signatures of Ali Muhammad on this document do not tally with his signatures on the back of this document. Furthermore, the name of Muhammad Sharif Raza, the Stamp Vendor appears to have been added later on. The original document has been stained with an oily hand so that it may put on an old look." .We find no illegality in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Since this is the position, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed. A.A./A‑580/S Petitions dismissed.