2007 PLP 1305 (MLD)

MAULVI ANWAUL HAQ, J.

Mst. Kaneez Fatima, the deceased respondent (hereinafter, to be referred to as the respondent) acquired the suit-land, mentioned in the plaint, by means of a mutation of gift No.138 attested on 26-3-1999. On 22-5-1999 Khan Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) filed a suit for possession of the said land by pre-emption. According to him, the land was, in fact, sold for Rs.16,

000. He claimed to be a co-sharer as also a Shaft Khalit and Jar. Performance of talbs were pleaded. The respondent in her written statement pleaded that the donor, namely, Fattu is her father and has gifted the land to her. The other allegations were denied. Issues were framed. Evidence of the - parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree, dated 9-3-2006 the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The transaction was found, in fact, to be a gift by a father in favour of his daughter. It was also found that performance of talbs has not been proved. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned ADJ, Khushab, on 18-11-2006.

2. Learned counsel has tried to argue that evidence on record has been misread by the learned Courts below.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Mst. Kaneez Fatima respondent herself appeared as D.W.1 to state that her father gifted the suit-land to her and thereafter he has died. D.W.2 Sultan Ali, Lambardar, also supported her. There is no evidence on record that the land was sold by her father to the respondent for consideration. No circumstance has been brought on record to disbelieve the respondent as to why her father would not have gifted the land to her. I, therefore, uphold the finding as to the transaction to be a bona fide gift from a father to his daughter. So far as the matter of talbs is concerned, apart from the numerous discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the learned trial Court in the statements of P.Ws including one of the LRs of Khan Muhammad deceased, I find that upon a reading of the plaint a case of making of a first talb in accordance with the Islamic law is not made out. It has been stated in para-1 of the plaint that he filed an application for obtaining the copy of the mutation on 6-5-1999. The copy was issued on 12-5-1999 and thereafter he made a first talb. He has himself produced the copy of the application for obtaining the copy as Exh.P.2 and a bare reading of the application shows that on 24-4-1999, i.e. date of application the petitioner was fully aware that the mutation has been attested on 26-3-1999 when he filed the application. Even if it be assumed that he made the first talb on 12-5-1999 then that is against the Islamic law as codified in section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. This civil revision is wholly frivolous and is accordingly dismissed in limine. F.B./K-13/L Petition dismissed.