2010 PLP 978 (MLD)

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

Civil Revision 2765 of 2005 calls in question the validity of judgment and decree, dated 30-11-2005, whereby the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the respondent/plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated 29-10-2002 of the learned Civil Judge Chunian.

2. Brief facts giving rise the filing of the captioned civil revision are that respondent who is sister of the petitioners, and the property in dispute was owned by their father, upon whose demise, apparently a mutation of inheritance was entered into in favour of the parties, and on the same day, mutation of gift was allegedly recorded, whereby, the respondent/sister purportedly gifted her share of the property in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondent filed a suit for declaration challenging the said gift contending therein that for many years the petitioners paid her share of the income of the land, and on their refusal, she was put to inquiry and discovered that a mutation of gift had been entered into the Revenue Record purportedly transferring the land in favor of the petitioners. In the above backdrop, she filed a suit for declaration and possession.

3. Suit was resisted. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, and after recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court seized of the trial, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 30-11-2005. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge Chunian setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreed respondent/plaintiff's suit vide impugned appellate judgment and decree, dated 29-10-2002.

4. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record appended with this petition perused. It appears from the record that two attesting witnesses of the disputed mutation i.e., Lumberdars were never produced in evidence by the petitioner. The Revenue Officer who is alleged to have attested the mutation was not also produced in evidence. Another witness namely Muhammad Shafi was introduced in defence by the petitioners was not mentioned in the Revenue Record as a witness. It has also been noticed that Roznamcha Waqiati was also not available and not produced in evidence. In the instant case, the matter was also referred to Forensic Expert who also entered the witness box who noticed some similarities between the identical thumb-impressions of the respondent and the thumb-impression purportedly of the respondent in the Revenue Record. However, during the cross-examination, said expert in the witness box conceded that the thumb impression on the Revenue Record with which he had compared the admitted thumb-impression of the respondent was no longer available and was torn. Thus, the disputed thumb-impression was not produced before the Court. It these circumstances, it was not safe to rely upon the report of the Expert. Besides, there can be no escape from the fact that by way of the disputed transaction, the respondent female has been disinherited. In is not the case of the petitioners that at the time of the alleged transaction of gift, the respondent had any independent legal advice or the support of her male relatives, i.e. her husband. In such an eventuality the transaction in question could not be relied upon or given effect to. In this view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is unexceptionable and this Civil Revision being devoid of any merit must fail and is therefore dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. A.R.K./A-66/L Revision dismissed.