1985 PLP 1010 (MLD)

This is a civil revision assailing the judgment and the decree, dated 7-2-1979 of Mr. Muhammad Hussain Kazi, the then Additional District Judge, Gujrat.

2. The respondent-plaintiff being an aged person having no male issue depended upon the petitioner /defendant as his Bhanja who allegedly in a deceitful manner took him to Mandi Bahauddin on a pretext to get Mukhtarnama from him to manage his property, but instead got a decree, dated 18-7-1970 from the civil Court on his statement that he had gifted it in his favour. Subsequently, on knowing that he had been cheated by misrepresentation, he brought the present suit for declaration that he was still the owner in possession of the land in dispute and that he never made the impugned gift, nor did he deliver possession of the land to the petitioner/defendant under it. The suit was resisted by the petitioner/ defendant affirming that the impugned gift had in fact been made in his favour in lieu of his services rendered to the plaintiff /respondent and that the latter's wife Mst. Jallan having children from her previous husband, was now keen to get the property for them. He added that the plaintiff /respondent being a very old person was under undue influence of his wife in having brought the suit.

3. The trial Court framed issues in regard to the alleged fraud and non-delivery of possession etc. Its findings were in favour of the plaintiff /respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the learned Additional District Judge also took the view that the decree about the impugned gift had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

4. In the present revision, counsel contended that there was considerable divergence in the pleas raised by the respondent-donor. He pointed out that in the plaint, he had described that he was taken to Mandi Bahauddin on the pretext of executing a Mukhtarnama whereas in his testimony as P.W. 2, he disclosed that he had been taken to the said place for treatment and was given some poison in the Bazar which affected his comprehension to the extent that he did not know if he made any statement in any Court or not. Counsel urged that this was a clear misreading of the evidence on the part of Courts below.

5. On the other hand, it was claimed that both these grounds were considered at length by both the lower Courts and that since in their appreciation they found that the respondent had been defrauded by the petitioner who had some influence over him and was indeed in a fiduciary relationship towards him, it was not open in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction to impugn those findings of fact. It was added that since it was possible to hold such a view while appraising evidence, there was no power available to the High Court to upset it only because an opposite view was also possible.

6. I think the Courts below did not miss to note the evidence in its true perspective. It was held that being an aged person without any male issue, and sickly too, there was an occasion for the respondent /plaintiff to have asked the petitioner for his help and exploiting the situation by betraying the confidence reposed in him, he could get the document executed from the respondent. I can hardly see if there was any misreading of evidence on these facts. There was no illegality in coming to this conclusion because broadly speaking the facts of the respondent's old age, illness, issuelessness and all that were not controverted.

7. It is not open to reconsider such findings muchless in the exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. H . B . T . Revision petition dismissed.