This revision petition arises out of the facts of a suit for declaration with permanent injunction filed by Mst. Safia Bibi, deceased mother of Petitioners Nos, 1 to 5 against Muhammad Aslam and others defendants respondents (herein) claiming to be legal heir (daughter of Muhammad Khan deceased) and entitled for inheritance of his property according to sharia, challenging the validity/legality of gift-deeds dated 22.1.1977 and 22.1.1980. The suit was contested by Defendants Nos, 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 who filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court led to frame various issues.
2. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the trial Court vide, judgment and decree dated 20.6.1992 dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners also met with the same fate vide, judgment and decree dated 8.3.2000 by the Additional District Judge Gujrat/Appellate Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Mst. Safia Bibi being legal heir. of deceased- Muhammad Khan had being deprived of her `shari' share of inheritance through impugned transaction of gift in favour of defendants-respondents and the gift made by the donor is in violation of principle of inheritance as provided in 'Muhammadan Jurisprudence' that a Muslim cannot be deprived of any of his Muslim heir while transferring his property through Tamleeq in favour of other legal heirs. He relied on cases of Mst. Khalida Bibi vs. Mst. Daryai Khanum (1994 M LD 2339) and Muhammad Shafi vs. Nasir Ali (1994 M LD 283).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contending that the judgments of the Courts below have been passed in accordance with law and that the Holy Quran does not prohibit a gift in favour of an heir excluding other heirs. He relied on case of Noor Muhammad Khan vs. Habibullah Khan (1994 PSC 807).
5. I have heard both sides at length and perused the record.
6. The question that boils down for determination in this case is that whether a gift made by any Muslim, holder of the property in favour of an heir excluding the other heir is prohibited by Holy Quran or not. Muhammad Khan son of Fazal Din deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the parties was in possession of the suit land measuring 106 Kanals and 17 Marlas, the detail of which is mentioned in the plaint. He transferred his property in favour of his three sons namely, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Akbar and Fazal Karim, 3/4 share and Mst. Aiysha, his wife, 1/2 share, vide registered gift-deed dated 22.1.1977 and thereafter Mst. Aiysha, his wife, transferred her share in favour of Muhammad Akbar, her son his share of the property which she acquired through registered gift-deed. Inthis regard, the trial Court framed Issue No, 1 which is as under:-- "Whether gift-deeds registered on 22.1.1977 and 22.1.1980 are illegal . void and in-operative upon the rights of plaintiff ? OPP."
In case of Muhammad Shafi (supra) an Hon'ble Judge of this Court had observed that gift to deprive lawful heirs from inheritance was not valid. The same principle was followed in Mst. Khalida Bibi's cased referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. This proposition was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Noor Muhammad Khan's case (supra) and relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under for further guidance:-- "After due consideration of all the authorities referred to above we are. of the opinion that under Islamic Law a preferential gift is not void. It may be described by some Jurists, sinful, but as it is not prohibited, it cannot be declared to be void."
In the case in hand as discussed in the precedings paragraphs, the gift by the donor Muhammad Khan was made in favour of donees, his three sons and his wife through registered gift-deeds mentioned above and further transfer of property in favour of Muhammad Akbar by his mother Mst. Ayesha on 22.1.1980. The presumption of correctness is attached to these registered documents as an endorsement is made on the same by the Sub-Registrar, the registering authority which means that the documents were validly executed and presented by the donor for registration before the Sub-Registrar. Reference in this respect can be made to the cases of Mirza Muhammad Sharif vs. Mst. Nawab Bibi (1993 SCM R 462), Muhammad Alam vs. Rahmat Ali (2000 M LD 1459) and Ajimuddin Parmanik and others vs. Najeemuddin Mondal (PLD 1966 Dacca 259).
8. From the perusal of gift-deeds executed by Muhammad Khan it is evident that the time of registration of the same the donor as well as one of the donees Muhammad Akbar appeared before the Registering authority and thumb impression of said Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Akbar are reflected on the said documents, which is sufficient proof, that requirements of offer and acceptance of gifts were completed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality in the gift-deeds nor has referred non-performance of any of three requirements for a valid gift.
9. Moreover, the gift-deed was executed in the year 1977 and second deed was completed in the year 1980, while present suit had been filed in 1999 and Safia Bibi has not been able to establish her assertion that she has been receiving any produce from the defendants. The Courts below have rightly given findings to the effect that the suit was filed beyond period of limitation i,e, six years as provided in Article 120 of the Limitation Act, therefore, the findings on Issue No, 4 call for no interference. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality or perversity in the findings of Courts below and no other point has been agitated by him before this Court.
10.There is also concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners and this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below unless it is established that the Courts had exercised the jurisdiction so vested in them illegally or have failed to exercise the same legally as laid down in the cases of M. Rafique Vs. Ameer Shahzad (1999 YLR 610), Rab Nawaz vs. Shah Hanif.(1999 M LD 2160) and Guldar Khan vs. Isa Khan and others (1993 SCM R 2099).
11.Resultantly, this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed.