On 17.9.1996 Respondent No, 1 filed a suit against the petitioners and Respondents Nos, 2 to 4.
According to the plaint the suit land mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint is owned by Respondent No, 1.
She is illiterate simple village folk and had never transferred the land in favour of the defendants in the case in any manner. She learnt 5. months ago that Respondents Nos, 2 to 4 got her land mutated in their favour vide Mutation No, 4 attested on 19.11.1967 and thereafter proceeded to sell the same in favour of the remaining defendants i,e, the present petitioners vide registered sale- deed dated 25.6.1975. According to her she had never gifted the ,land to the Respondents Nos, 2 to 4 and never got any mutation attested in their favour. She sought a declaration of her ownership accordingly. The suit was contested by the petitioners who asserted that Respondent No,. 1 made a valid gift in favour of Respondents Nos, 2 to 4. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21:7.2001. A first appeal-filed by Respondent No, 1 was allowed by a learned Addl. District Judge at Nankana Sahib, on 17.4.2003, who decreed her suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Addl. District Judge has misread the evidence on record, while passing the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel for contesting Respondent No, 1, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now I have already reproduced the pleadings of the parties above. According to Respondent No, 1 she had not gifted away the land to Respondents Nos, 1 to 3 whereas it was case of the petitioners that she has made a valid gift. Now Respondent No, 1 appeared as PW-1. She stated that she has a son and four daughters while Respondents Nos, 2 to 4 are her cousin and that she had never gifted the land to them and she did not got the mutation entered with Patwari and she did not appear before the Tehsildar. The land is joint. Now the original Mutation No, 4 was brought by Abdul Ghaffar, Junior Clerk DW-1. A copy of this mutation is Exh.P1. According to this document the mutation was entered on 7.10.1967 and attested before A.C.-II Grade on 19.11.1967 upon the identification of Muhammad Arif Chairman Union Council and Nazara one of the donees. Now the said Muhammad Arif appeared as DW-2 to state that Mst.
Bakhan Respondent No, 1 appeared before the Revenue Officer. He identified her as well as Respondents Nos, 2 to 4 and stated that she had given land to her nephews and delivered the possession. In his cross-examination he stated that thumb-impression of Respondent No, 1 was not fixed in before the Tehsildar. It may be so fixed before the Patwari and then he stated that Respondent No, 1 fixed her thumb-impression before the Patwari a month or month and a half before she appeared before the Tehsildar. Now he stated that Bakhsn is not related to him. He does not know the name of husband of Mst. Bakhan or name of any of her children or sons-in-law or daughter-in-law.
4. The statement of this witness would show that Mst. Bakhan was total stranger so far as this witness is concerned. There is no other evidence on record. To my mind, this is case of no evidence.
5. Having thus examined the record I do not find any misreading of the record by the learned Addl.
District Judge. He has considered the evidence keeping in view the law declared by the superior judiciary in the matter of transaction entered into by an illiterate village lady and more particularly where the transaction has been made by mutation.
6. I further note that the learned Addl. District Judge has very correctly posed a question in his judgment as to why the lady who has a son and three daughters of her own would gift away the property to the Respondents Nos, 2 to 4. The question is very pertinent and remained unanswered on record as the Respondents Nos, 2 to 4 have also not stated a word as to why Mst. Bakhan would give away all her land to them. Reference be made to the case of Barkat Ali through L.Rs and others u. Muhammad Ismail through L.Rs and others (2002 SCM R 1938). According to the said dictum the absence of even an allegation that the gift was made for the reasons as such love and affection or services would reflect upon the validity of the transaction.
7. The civil revision is without any force and is accordingly dismissed with costs.