' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This petition is directed against a judgment, dated 16-1-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,170 of 1995 whereby the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned trial and the learned Appellate Court were set aside and the respondent's suit was decreed.
2. Mst. Bandi petitioner is a real sister of Munshi Khan Respondent. Their father Mehtab Khan was allotted some land in the year 1947 in Tehsil Depalpur of District Okara. He died in the year 1956 leaving behind the petitioner, the respondent and one other daughter, namely, Mst. Allah Bandi. It was the case of Munshi Khan Respondent that he and his sister executed a power of attorney in the name of the husband of their sister Mst. Allah Bandi, namely, Mustafa for the purpose of securing the transfer and the title of the above-mentioned land allotted to their father. He had added that subsequently, he came to know that instead of getting a special power of attorney from him, the said Mustafa had in fact manoeuvred a general power of attorney and on coming to know of this fact he cancelled the said power of attorney. Munshi Khan respondent had, further alleged through the suit filed by him that about a year prior to the filing of the said suit the said Mustafa died whereafter it transpired that he had, exercising the power allegedly given to him by Munshi Khan respondent through the above-mentioned power of attorney, gifted his share in his father's land to his sister Mst. Bandi petitioner through a Mutation bearing No,10 dated 11-4-1960 on the strength of an oral gift. Through a suit filed by Munshi Khan respondent he had claimed that he had never given any such power to the said Mustafa nor had he ever gifted his land in question to his sister Mst. Bandi and that it was a fraud played by the said Mustafa in collusion with Mst. Bandi as a result whereof he had illegally been deprived of his land. Through his judgment dated 5-5-1992, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by Munshi Khan respondent and similar was the fate of the appeal filed by him which was dismissed on 19-12-1994 by a learned Additional District Judge at Okara. He then approached the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No,170 of 1995 which was allowed as a result whereof the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Judge as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court were set aside and the respondents' suit was decreed.
Hence this petition by Mst. Bandi.
3. It had come in evidence that Munshi Khan respondent was an illiterate person who was working as a Chowkidar and that he was the father of five children. It had also come on record that Mst.
Bandi was issueless and it was the case of Munshi Khan respondent that there was no reason and no question of the respondent having gifted his entire land to Mst. Bandi or to have consented to the making of such a gift by Mustafa. The learned Judge in Chambers had also found that the father of the parties, namely Mehtab Khan had an evacuee claim and after his death Mustafa was authorized to get the land transferred against the said claim and further that there was no occasion for Munshi Khan to have authorize the said Mustafa to gift away the said land to Mst.
Bandi in the year 1957 when it was not even known whether the suit-land would in fact be transferred in the name of Mehtab Khan which would then devolve on Munshi Khan. The learned Single Judge, relying upon Mst. Shumal Begum's case 1994 SCM R 818 had also found and rightly so that in case of a gift made by an attorney it must be shown that the power of attorney had specifically authorized the said attorney to make a gift of the land in favor of the specified person which was not the situation in the present case. The Honourable High Court had further noticed that Mst. Bandi never appeared as her own witness and it was a son of the said alleged attorney, namely, Mustafa, who had entered the witness-box on her behalf as D.W.4. This witness, namely, Mehboob was only about 3/4 years at the time of the making of the alleged gift in the year 1960 and would, therefore, not have any personal knowledge of the factum of making of the gift in question. He was the one who admitted to be cultivating the suit-land which belonged to Mst.
Bandi who, as has been mentioned above, was issueless. This is a further fact indicating that Mustafa attorney would have made this gift for his benefit as Mst. Bandi was issueless and as he and his said son would be real beneficiaries of this alleged gift. It had also been noticed by the learned Judge in Chambers that both the learned subordinate Courts had ignored the fact that Mst. Bandi had never pleaded that it was Munshi Khan who had made the gift in question in her favor and her case was that it was Mustafa who had gifted the said land as attorney of Munshi Khan.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that no exception could be taken to the conclusions reached by the Honourable High Court and the reasons which had weighed with it in reaching the said conclusions. It is true that the High Court had disturbed the concurrent findings of the two Courts below but it could not be shown that such a decision on the part of the High Court was not warranted by the evidence and the material available on record.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. .