2008 PLP 790 (CLC)

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

Civil Revision 2027 of 2007 filed by petitioner Allah Ditta has arisen from judgment, dated 2-10-2007 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat dismissed petitioner's appeal to call in question the validity of judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Gujrat decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent.

2. Brief resume of the relevant facts are that respondent filed a suit for declaration and joint possession with reference to suit property, as detailed in her plaint, with the averments that the suit property was in the ownership of one Shah Muhammad and Rehman and after the demise of latter, respondent-plaintiff being his daughter inherited half of the suit-land measuring 39 Kanals and 12 Marlas. It was next asserted that petitioner with the connivance of the revenue functionaries, manoeuvred the attestation of Mutation of Gift 1228 on 5-12-1960. The plaintiff reiterated that she being an illiterate and "Parda Nashin" lady never ever made any gift in favour of the petitioner. She also denied to have appeared before any revenue functionary and that petitioner was her real Chachazad (cousin). Lastly, it was canvassed that questioned mutation of gift in the Revenue Record was an outcome of misrepresentation and fraud, and thus, the respondent-plaintiff sought its annulment before the trial Court.

3. Suit was contested by the petitioner on the grounds of limitation, insufficient and incorrect description of the property in addition to inadequacy of the court-fee and that "Hiba" was also rightly made by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of the petitioner.

4. The learned trial Court recorded evidence of the parties on the issues framed and after evaluating the pros and cons of the case consequently, decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree, dated 3-3-2005. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court dismissed the same by means of judgment and decree, dated 2-10-2007. Hence, the instant civil revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that land in question was in fact rightly and correctly gifted by respondent in favour of the petitioner and that relevant entries in the Revenue Record to that effect speak for themselves. Adds that respondent-plaintiff herself appeared before the revenue functionaries to vouch for the validity and genuineness of the alleged gift and that suit instituted by her was an outcome of rivalry between the parties. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel relies on NLR 1990 Civil 699, PLD 1991 SC 466, 1992 CLC 235, 2007 SCMR 466 and 2007 SCMR 1446.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and record of the case. To a specific query by this Court as to whether any male member of the respondent-plaintiff was present at the time of the alleged transaction of the gift and whether any credible proof of the offer of the alleged gift, its acceptance and delivery of possession stand borne out from the record. And further whether any witness was independently examined by the petitioner to have accompanied the respondent at the time of so-called execution of the gift by the respondent before the revenue authorities, as she was admittedly an illiterate and "Parda Nashin" lady.

7. While replying to the aforesaid queries as to the prerequisites and fulfilment of the questioned gift, the learned counsel representing the petitioner frankly conceded that no such witness was either produced or summoned by the petitioner to corroborate petitioner's assertions. In this view of the matter, this Court is enlightened and fortified by the principle of law laid down by the apex Court in its celebrated judgment reported as Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1. 7(sic). On careful scrutiny and analysis of impugned judgments, I find that consistent and concurrent findings of both the Courts below are based on independent application of judicial mind and fair evaluation and appreciation of the entire evidence. Not an iota of evidence could be highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner even so as to presume that judgments impugned herein suffer from any perversity, misreading and non-reading of evidence. I have further noticed that conclusions drawn are based on sound reasons and are in absolute conformity of the law laid down by the superior Courts to deal with and cater for such-like eventualities.

8. In nutshell, judgments and decree impugned herein being free from any jurisdictional defect and illegality are not at all open to any exception and interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with the consequence that this petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. M.H./A-271/L Revision dismissed.