' SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- A declaratory suit with consequential relief and injunction instituted by the petitioners that they were owners of suit-land measuring. 13 Kanals, 3 Marlas which had been alienated to them by their sister Mst. Muhammad Bibi was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14-11-1995 whereagainst their appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal on 2-2-2000. They have now assailed the concurrent findings and judgments through this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel contends that the Courts below have misread the evidence on the record in particular the testimony of Muhammad Ali D.W.3 and the findings recorded against the petitioners are not supported by the evidence produced by the parties. It is further contended that the oral gift made by Mst. Muhammad Bibi deceased was complete when she reported this factum to the Patwari and report to this effect was recorded in the Roznamcha (Exh.P.6) on 13-6-1989. According to him the mutation should have been sanctioned in such circumstances but the Revenue Officer acted illegally in declining to do so. It is further contended that proper issues had not been framed by the trial Court, which vitiate the judgments recorded against the petitioners. Reference has been made to Muhammad Zaman Khan v. The Additional Chief Land Commissioner and another 1988 SCM R 1121 and Fazal Mehmood and others v. Tajar Khan 1992 M LD 1439.
' While supporting the concurrent view taken by the Courts below the learned counsel for the respondents (sons and daughter of Mst. Muhammad Bibi deceased), contends that the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below cannot be interfered within the revisional jurisdiction and that Mst. Muhammad Bibi was an old aged and ailing illiterate woman, who was not in full senses and was defrauded by her brothers, and the Revenue Officer rightly declined to sanction the mutation. It is contended that there was no reason or motive for her to alienate the land in favour of the petitioners when she herself had two sons and a daughter to succeed her. Reliance has been placed by him upon Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1; Mst.
Badshah Begum v. Ghulam Rasul and 4 others PLD 1991 SC 1140 and Khalil Ahmad v. Abdul Jabbar Khan 2005 SCM R 911.
3. The respective contentions have been considered. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding non-framing of proper issues is concerned, suffice it to observe that issues were framed in presence of the learned counsel for the parties who not only continued to take part in the trial without any objection but also produced evidence to their satisfaction despite the provisions available in Order XIV, C.P.C. For the redressal of such a grievance. At no stage any such attempt was made by the petitioners. Such a grievance cannot now be made before this Court in revisional jurisdiction for the first time. The contention thus, loses its worth is repelled.
4. The petitioners herein are brothers of Mst. Muhammad Bibi deceased whereas the respondents are her sons and daughters. The gift, which has become the bone of contention between the parties is alleged to have been made by Mst. Muhammad Bibi on 13-6-1989 in favour of the petitioners, (her brothers) and report No,378 dated 13-6-1989 was recorded by the Patwari.
Mutation No,139 was entered on the same date but was not sanctioned by the Revenue Officer (before whom Mst. Muhammad Bibi appeared) in view of the observations recorded by him in the order dated 18-6-1989 (Exh.P.1). It may be observed that besides the concurrent findings of the Courts below the petitioners' plea about the making of gift by Mst. Muhammad Bibi in their favour suffered from inherent infirmities. It was fraught with inconsistencies inasmuch as in the plaint the case sought to be set up was that the gift was made in their favour by Mst. Muhammad Bibi for the services rendered by them to her whereas while deposing before the trial Court Allah Rakha P.W.3 stated that Mst. Muhammad Bibi had offered to give her land in the name of Allah. Needless to state that the entries in the Roznamcha EXh.P.6 and Mutation Exh.P.1 do not support either of their assertion rather column No,12 of the mutation shows that the alleged oral gift was as against the consideration of Rs,30,000. It proves the hollowness of the inconsistent pleas of the petitioners. The other important aspect which cannot be ignored is that Mst. Muhammad. Bibi was a married woman having two sons and a daughter. There was no apparent reason brought on record for her to gift away the land in favour of the petitioners by depriving her own sons and the daughter.
Another aspect equally of importance, which goes against the petitioners is that the alleged gift is\ stated to have been made in the month of June, 1989 and as per averments made in the plaint Mst.
Muhammad Bibi had died sometimes around the month of December, 1989. The mutation of alleged gift Exh.P.1 was declined by the Revenue Officer on 18-6-1989 and as stated by Allah Rakha P.W.3 the copy of the same was obtained on the very next date but, the suit was not instituted during her life time and it was filed after her death on 3-1-1990. All these aspects militate against the very foundation of the claim of the petitioners as to the factum of gift. The Courts below were thus, fully justified to non-suit the petitioners by recording findings against them. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners criticized the testimony of Muhammad Ali D.W.3 who appeared as attorney for the respondents but any inconsistency even if found in his deposition would not go to the benefit of the petitioners who are expected to prove their own version and have to succeed on the strength of their own case. The preponderance of the evidence and the attending circumstances support the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.
5. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners upon Muhammad Zaman Khan v. The Additional Chief Land Commissioner and another 1986 SCM R 1121 is of no help to the petitioners inasmuch as in that case which arose in the context of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) it was observed "even otherwise if under the law the gifts were validly made prior to the date when the mutations were put up for confirmation, the mere fact that the donor wished to repudiate them would not legally invalidate the gifts". In the present case however, the petitioners have not been successful in proving that any valid gift had been made by Mst. Muhammad Bibi in their favour.
In view of the above, the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below against the petitioners warrant no interference by this Court. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.