1989 PLP 1602 (SCMR)

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑All the above‑mentioned petitions are for leave to appeal from the consolidated judgment of the Lahorc High Court, Lahore, d:1ted 28‑11‑1984, out of which Petition No.252 of 1985 filed by Muhammad 1qbal petitioner against Fazal Muhammad respondent and the rest of the petitions against N1st. Tameez Riffat and all were dismissed by the impugned judgment. Facts briefly stated are that three suits were instituted separately rcgarding House No.ll‑A, Haider Road, Krishan Nagar, Lahore, whcrehy Suit No.1194/1/1979 Filed by Muhammad Iqbal petitioner herein in all the three petitions against Fazal Muhammad respondent herein, for a declaration that he is the sole owner of the suit house by way of an oral gift made by Fazal Muhammad in his favour and the gift made in favour of Mst. Tameez Riffat by the said donor is illegal and of no legal effect on the rights of the petitioner with consequential relief that he be not dispossessed of the property in dispute. Fazal Muhammad respondent filed Civil Suit No.1205/1/76 for the recovery of Rs.3,500 against Muhammad lqbal petitioner, as compensation for use and occupation by way of damages at the rate of Rs.100 p.m. from July, 1973 to June, 1976. Mst. Tameez Riffat respondent filed Suit No.7/2/1977 against the petitioner alleging that that the property in dispute was gifted to her by Ch. Fazal Muhammad, her uncle/father‑in‑law through a valid oral gift dated on 1‑7‑1976 and the petitioner Muhammad lqal being a licensee, is liable to be ejected from the house in dispute. All these three suits were consolidated by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framcd different contesting issues and after recording evidence vide his order, dated 30‑5‑1983 rejected the suit No.1194/1/76 filed by the petitioner Muhammad lqbal under Order

7. Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and decreed Suit Nos.1285/1/76 of Ch. Fazal Muhammad and No.7/2/77 of Mst. Tameez Riffat both against Muhammad lqbal petitioner, as prayed for, vide his judgment dated 14‑12‑1983. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.ll/84 and No.12/84. A learned Additional District Judge partly accepted C.A. No‑11/84 relating to the suit filed by Fazal Muhammad respondent for the recovery of Rs.3,500, decreed the suit only to the tune of Rs.3,270 only and declared tile remaining claim as time‑barred and C.A. No.l2/1984 wits dismissed vide Jjudgment, dated 30‑4‑1984. However, a third appeal filed by Muhammad lqbal petitioner challenging the decree for the recovery of Rs.19,200 passed in favour of Mst. Tameez Riffal respondent was also partially accepted by the Additional District .hide, reducing the decretal amount to the tune of Rs.10,800 vide a separate judgment of the same date. Regular second appeal No.141 /84 along with two other Civil Revisions Nos.1465‑D/84 and 1.166‑D/84 of the petitioner Muhammad Iqbal before the Lahore High Court were dismissed vide its consolidated judgment, dated 28‑11‑1984. Hence the above‑noted petitions for leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three petitions and perused the record of the case in the light of the arguments advanced by tile learned counsel. The record shows that the entire house in dispute was gifted over to lst. Taineez Riffal by the donor Ch. Fazal Muhammad being her uncle as well as father‑in‑law on 1‑7‑1976. This fact finds corroboration from the statement of the donor himself, whereas the petitioner owner has miserably failed to prove his claim to be the sole property in dispute through an alleged oral gift in his favour by the said donor or to disprove the claim of tile respondent h1st. Tamcez Riffat of the said house through a valid oral gift in her favour by Fazal Muhammad respondent. This is the main point which is the bone of contention amongst the parties. All the controversial points involved in these' three petitions are relating to the question of fact which the learned Courts below have thoroughly adjudicated upon and concurrently arrived at a correct conclusion, which the learned High Court has rightly not interfered with the exception of little modifications in the amount of compensation. The fact is not disputed that the property in question was transferred by the donor by wily of a valid gift to Mst. Tamecz Riffat. Muhammad lqbal petitioner being the adult son of Fazal Muhammad is to look after his own affairs and should live separately. If he wanted to live jointly without having gained the love and affection of his father, he is liable to pay the compensation to his father so far the house in question remained in ownership of his father and thereafter to Mst. Tameez Riffat the real donee of the house in dispute. Under the circumstances and facts of the case we do not rind any justification for interference with the findings of facts in all the three petitions mentioned in the heading of this judgment, by the learned Courts below. Therefore, we dismiss the same accordingly. M.A.K./M‑864/S Petitions dismissed.