' This civil revision arises out of judgment and decree dated 5-6-2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in affirmance to the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 25-10-2001 whereby a decree was passed in favour of the respondents in a suit for declaration filed by thein seeking cancellation of mutation of gift dated 20-9-1994, allegedly executed by Ahmed Ali, on the basis of general power of attorney dated 8-9-1994, on the ground of fraud.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that mutation in dispute contains approximate value of Rs.1,20,000 which should be the value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction. The suit was tried by a learned Civil Judge Class-III, whose pecuniary jurisdiction is less than the amount mentioned in the mutation, therefore, his judgment is without jurisdiction and is nullity in the eye of law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents in reply submitted that value for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction in the plaint was fixed as Rs.200. The transaction in dispute was gift. An approximate value mentioned in the gift mutation carries no value in the eye of law. No evidence has been produced to establish the market value of the land in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force and is rejected outrightly for the reasons that the value mentioned in the plaint governs the jurisdiction of the Courts. No evidence was led by him to prove the market value of the suit-land obtaining on the day, when mutation of gift was sanctioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to point out what prejudice has been caused to him on hearing of the suit by a Court presided by a Civil Judge Class-III, to which he failed to give any adequate answer. The learned trial Court had the jurisdiction, but in case of dispute in regard to his pecuniary limits, it will have no bearing on the judgment, as no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Reliance can be placed on Ali Muhammad and others v.
Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1996 SC 292. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the gift was proved by the petitioner by producing the petition writer and the marginal witnesses, who supported the execution of the gift. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted this argument and contended that the petitioner failed to prove the transaction of gift. Both the learned Courts below on appraisal of evidence recorded a concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners. It was held that a valid gift was not made in favour of the petitioner.
4. In addition to the above, the gift was made by a general attorney of the petitioner. It was made in favour of real mother of the attorney. Admittedly on record no evidence is available to the effect of seeking prior permission of the executant for transfer of the property by way of gift in favour of his own real mother. It is now well-settled proposition of law that in absence of a consent of the executant, the transfer by an attorney in favour of his own close relation is doubtful because the ultimate beneficiary is the attorney himself. Reliance can be placed on Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan and others (sic); Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others 1994 SCM R 818 and Haji Faqir Muhammad and others v. Pir Muhammad and another 1997 SCM R 1811.
5. For what has been stated above, this civil revision having no merit is dismissed.