' On 31-7-1994 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the suit-land mentioned in para.1 was owned by Muhammad Nazir, who died on 25-5-1993. The petitioners and respondents Nos.1 and 2 are children of said Muhammad Nazir, while respondent No.3 is a vendee. It was then stated that Muhammad Nazir in the year 1979 gifted away 85 !Canals, 10 Marlas of land to his perspective L. Rs. i.e. The said children and his widow Mst. Majeedan (defendant No.3 in the original suit). However, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 excluded the name of said widow. It was further stated that in June, 1993 when the petitioners intended to sell some land for -a legal necessity. They came to know that there is less area in their name and further that through Mutation No.2744 attested on 15-1-1987 respondents Nos.1 and 2 have got mutated the remaining land in their favour by way of gift. According to them the late father had never gifted away the land and got the mutation attested in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and they have been paying the share of produce to them. There is reference to another suit filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioners. With these averments a declaration was sought that the said mutation dated 15-1-1987 is illegal and void. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement pleaded a valid gift in their favour. The said widow admitted the suit. Respondent No.3 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser as the petitioner themselves had sold the land in his favour through sale- deed registered on 28-4-1993. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-- ' Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action or locus standi to bring this suit? OPD.
' Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.
' Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
' Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD.
' Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so what is the correct valuation for both the purposes? OPD.
(6) Whether the suit has been instituted with mala fide intention just> to harass the defendants and hence the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C., if so, to what extent? OPD.
(7) Whether the Mutation No.2744 dated 15-1-1987 and gift deed No.144 dated 28-1-1979, Mutations Nos.4151 and 4168 dated 15-5-1994 are illegal, void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs ?
OPP.
(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration and claimed for? OPP.
(8-A) Whether Muhammad Nazir, the alleged donor was suffering from Marzalmaut and was incompetent to make any valid statement during the year 1987? OPP.
(9) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13-3-1998 inasmuch as the said Mutation No.2744 attested on 15-1-1987 was cancelled but the suit regarding insertion of widow in gift deed dated 28-1-1979 was dismissed.
Against the judgment and decree respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a first appeal while petitioners filed cross-objections. Both the matters were heard together. Vide judgment and decree dated 26-6- 2000, a learned Additional District, Judge, Shorkot allowed the appeal and dismissed the objections.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no evidence of any valid gift in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 qua the Mutation No.2744 attested on 15-1-1987 and as such the learned Additional District Judge has acted without jurisdiction while reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court. Learned counsel, however, has not much to say qua the objections as to non-insertion of name of Majeedan widow of Abdul Razzaq in gift deed dated 28-1-1979. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Copy of the impugned Mutation No.2744 is available as Exh.P.1. Now this mutation was taken up by the Revenue Officer on 15-1-1987 and he has recorded that the said Muhammad Nazir donor along with Shaukat Ali one of the donee upon identification of Ghulam Mustafa Lambarder and Allah Bakhsh Pattidar have admitted sale, delivery of possession and receipt of consideration.
4. Now the original record was produced by Allah Bakhsh Girdawar D.W.1, Zafar Ali, D.W.2 was Halqa Patwari at the relevant time. According to him the entries in Mutation No.2744 are in his hand and he had entered the mutation upon the asking of Haji Nazir who was identified at the time of attestation by Ghulam Mustafa Lambarder and Allah Bakhsh Pattidar. According to him he entered the mutation in his office at about 10/11 a.m. He had not taken N.I.C. Of the alleged donor and has not mentioned the number. He then stated that "Parrt Sarkar" does not bear the signatures of the parties. He further stated that in the "Parrt Patwar Shaukat respondent No.1 had signed in place of Muhammad Nazir. D.W.3 is Shaukat Ali respondent No.
1. He states that his father got the mutation attested in respect of 133 Kanals, 12 Marlas in favour of two brothers and delivered the possession. The persons who identified i.e. Lambardar and Pattidar had died. According to him the mutation was entered on 1-1-1987 and was attested on 15-1-1987.
However, both Parrt Sarkar Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.8 show that the mutation was entered on 13-1-1987 and was attested on 15-1-1987. I further find that whereas N.I.C. Number of Ghulam Mustafa and Allah Bakhsh are stated in Exh.P.1, in the Parrt Patwar Exh.P.8 N.I.C. Number of Muhammad Nazar, whose signatures according to P.W.3 were affixed by Shaukat Ali, the said N.I.C. Number is not there. Now it is true that the said Lambardar and Pattidar have died, what "matters is that there is no evidence as to when the said gift was made i.e. Declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession. The Revenue. Officer, who did not even know as to what transaction he is attesting, has also not been produced.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents then tried to argue that since it was the case of the petitioners that their father was suffering from Marzalmaut, which they had failed to prove, it should be assumed that the factum of gift stands admitted. I am afraid; there is no force in this contention because the petitioners have denied in the plaint that their father had made any gift.
6. Now the learned Additional District Judge has opted to draw upon his imagination. He has brushed aside the matter by simply observing that normally the sons are given larger share than the daughter. Of course the sons are given double share of daughter but daughters by no mean are excluded by the son.
7. Having thus examined the records I do find that the learned Additional District Judge has failed to read the evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and decree.
8. So far as the matter of widow of Abdul Razzaq is concerned, suffice it to say she never questioned the said gift earlier made on 28-1-1979 (Exh.P.9) and did not join the petitioners in the suit. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly non-suited the petitioners on the said account.
9. This civil revision is accordingly allowed inasmuch as the judgment and decree dated 26-6- 2000, the learned Additional District Judge-I, Shorkot, is set aside and one passed by the learned trial Court partly decreeing the suit of the petitioners on 13-3-1998 is restored. No order as to costs.