2003 PLP 780 (SCMR)

JAVED IQBAL, J.

These two petitions (C. P. L. As.) Nos. 1206 and 1207/L of ,2002) for leave to appeal are directed against judgment dated 22-3-2002 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby two Revision Petitions bearing Nos. 1219 and 1220 of 1999 preferred on behalf of petitioner were dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Okara, reversing the judgment/decree dated 3-7-1996 passed by learned Civil Judge, Okara, was kept intact. In view of the common questions of law and facts, the above captioned petitions are being disposed of by this order.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned judgment are to the effect "that through two Mutations of Gift Nos.551 and'254 both dated 31-5-1993, suit-land, which is agricultural in nature, was mutated on account of the gift in favour of the petitioner by Bodi, his cousin. Bodi, subsequently, filed suits on 11-12-1994, challenging the aforesaid mutations of gift as a result of fraud and misrepresentation and stated in the plaint that he in fact had leased out the land to the petitioner, but through deception, mutations of gift have been procured. These suits were resisted by the petitioner. The trial Court framed issues and after recording 'evidence, dismissed the suits, whereas on appeals filed by Bodi, predecessor-in-interest of respondents, judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside and the suits have been allowed". Being aggrieved two revision petitions were filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Okara, but with no avail and the same were dismissed .vide judgment impugned, hence these petitions.

3. Heard Ch. Bashir Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner at length who mainly contended that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court should have not been endorsed by the learned High Court being contrary to law and facts. It is next contended that the evidence which has come on record has not been appreciated by the Appellate Court which also escaped notice of the learned High Court resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also argued that possession of the property in dispute is still with the petitioner as a donee and the factum of possession has not been kept in view by the learned High Court while disposing of the revision petitions.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of recor4 of the case which has. been examined in depth with the eminent aisistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court. The entire evidence has been scanned and judgment and decree dated 3-7-1996 passed by learned Civil Judge, Okara, the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Okara, and judgment impugned have been perused with ;,are and caution. We are not persuaded to agree with the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are contrary to law and facts for the reason that entire evidence has been examined with diligent application of mind by the learned Appellate Court and the findings recorded are strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice. The petitioner has failed miserably to prove the factum of possession byl leading cogent and concrete evidence. The evidence is absolutely silent that where, when, why and before whop the gift was made by Bodi (plaintiff). There is absolutely no evidence showing that actually the gift was made by Bodi in favour of petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that there is also no evidence proving that pursuant to gift physical possession of the property in question was handed over to the petitioner. There is no cavil with the proposition that the factum of mutation cannot be considered as exclusive and sole proof to determine the question of ownership. Even otherwise the essential ingredients to constitute a valid gift around which the entire case of the petitioner revolves are lacking. In our considered view the conclusion as derived by the learned Appellate Court duly concurred by the learned High Court being well based cannot be reversed on flimsy grounds. The learned Advocate Supreme Court failed to point out any serious illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove the petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed. Q.M.H./B-62/S Petitions dismissed.