1987 PLP 1146 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 14‑10‑1980 in Civil Revision No. 55/BWP of 1979). ‑‑‑S.115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Suit for declaration and permanent injunction decreed by Trial Court‑‑Decision reversed in appeal and High Court declined to interfere in revision‑‑Finding of District Judge based on sufficient evidence on record and not suffering from any infirmity‑‑High Court, held, had very properly declined to interfere with them‑‑Leave to appeal refused. S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner in this petition for special leave to appeal is the father of the respondents. When the mother of the respondents died he had no male issue. On 9‑7‑1974 a mutation was attested by the local revenue officer whereby the petitioner was alleged to have gifted about a square of land situate in Chak No. 135/M in Tehsil Chistian in favour of three of his daughters. Later, he married again and from the second wife he has a number of children. On 18‑7‑1977 he instituted a suit for a declaration that he had never made any gift in favour of his daughters and that the mutation had been attested fraudulently. He also sought permanent injunction to restrain his daughters from interfering with his rights of ownership in the land. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. However, on appeal by the daughters the Additional District Judge held that the gift in fact had been made by the petitioner and that he had perfected it by transfer of possession of the land in question to the respondents. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the High Court which declined to interfere with the findings of the Additional District Judge. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. To prove the gift the donees examined the local patwari who had entered a mutation and the Naib‑Tehsildar who had passed the order of attestation. The patwari stated that he had entered the mutation at the instance of the petitioner. The Naib‑Tehsildar deposed that at the time of the attestation the petitioner was present in person. The land in dispute was admittedly in the possession of Muhammad Amin and Sardar. It may be mentioned that Sardar was one of the sons‑in‑law of the petitioner. Both Muhammad Amin and Sardar stated that they had been paying Batai to the donees. There was thus, sufficient evidence on the record to prove the gift and transfer of possession to the donees. Thus, the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on these questions do not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court, therefore, very properly declined to interfere with them. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.I. /F‑10/S Petition dismissed.