' The brief facts out of which present revision arises are that plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant on 1-9-1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Samundri. The contents of the plaint reveals that the land in-question measuring 12 Kanals and 18 Marlas situated at Chak No.480/G.B. Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad, was owned by the father of the parties namely Abdul Ghafoor. The land in-question was allegedly gifted to the petitioner through Mutation No.694, which was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 29-4-1992. The contents of plaint further reveal that the father of the parties was seriously ill, therefore, gift deed was executed through the said mutation in favour of the petitioner by the father of the parties during the period of his Marz-ul-Maut, therefore, the same is ineffective upon the rights_ of respondents Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ' ISSUES
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are stopped to sue by their words and conduct? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit as laid and framed
(4) Whether the suit is within time? OPP
(5) Whether the impugned mutation of gift deed No.694 dated 24-4-1992 in favour of defendant No.1 has been sanctioned in accordance with law and is sustainable and misrepresentation? OPD
(6) If above issue No.5 is proved not in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for? OPP
(7) Whether the deceased Abdul Ghafoor was in Marz-ul-Maut, at the time of attestation of mutation, if so, what is its effect? OPP
(8) Relief.
2. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 accepted the claim of the petitioner in toto. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10-4-1998. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Samundri, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 2-2-1998 to the extent of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and shall remain in tact to the extent of respondents Nos.3 to 5. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the land in-question was purchased by his father through income of the petitioner as the petitioner in those days, was in Saudi Arabia. He further submits that this fact was admitted by Mian Muhammad Amin, P.W.2 in his cross examination at page No.41 of this file. He further submits that other legal heirs accepted this fact and also admitted that the land in-question was purchased by income of the petitioner by their father and subsequently, he has transferred the same in the name of the petitioner in the shape of gift on 2-4-1992 through Mutation No.694. He further submits that both the Courts below have decided the case of the petitioner without application of mind and the same is the result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that the respondents failed to bring on record any cogent evidence that father of the petitioner was under apprehension of death.
According to the evidence on record, the father of the petitioner was suffering from paralysis for the last two years and was weak mentally and physically before making the gift, therefore, both the Courts below were not justified to accept the suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2, which is not inconsonance with law laid down by the Superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:- "Musarrat Ali v. The Crown" (PLD 1955 Lahore 190).
"Mst. Asmat Begum v. Mst. Hussain Jan and others" (PLD 1956 (W.P) Peshawar 5).
"Allah Rakha v. Nawab and others" (PLD 1967 Lahore 613).
4. The learned counsel of respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner secured the land in- question through the said Mutation No.694, which reveals that father of the petitioner has gifted the land in-question to him, but the petitioner did, not say a single word that his father has gifted the land to the petitioner in the contents of written statement. The petitioner has taken stand in the written statement that the land in-question was purchased by his father through his income. He further submits that the petitioner failed to, prove ingredients of gift in the written statement. He did not mention all the three ingredients in the written statement as well as in his oral evidence that the gift was executed by his father and aforesaid execution have been complied with at the time of sanctioning the mutation in favour of the petitioner and did not produce any evidence to prove the execution of gift deed in terms of mutation, therefore, the judgments of both Courts below are in accordance with law.
5. The learned counsel of respondents Nos.3 to 5 submits that the mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer, therefore, both the Courts below were not justified to decree the suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2. He further submits that the land in-question was purchased by father of the parties through income of the petitioner, therefore, original land was purchased by the father of the parties which is known as Benami transaction.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. It is admitted fact the Mutation No.694 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, which reveals that the land in-question was gifted by the father of the petitioner in his name. There are three ingredients of gift i.e. Offer, acceptance and possession. The petitioner has not mentioned a single word qua the aforesaid ingredients in the written statement and did not produce on record any evidence to show that the aforesaid ingredients were completed at the time of sanctioning the mutation of gift in favour of the petitioner, which is must as per law laid down by this Court in "Shamshad Ali Shah and others v. Syed Hassan Shah and others" (PLD 1960 (W.P), Lahore 300). In fact the petitioner has taken stand in the written statement that the land in-question was purchased by the father of petitioner, through income of the petitioner. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner that the petitioner failed to prove that the gift was executed by his father in his favour after completing all the legal formalities in accordance with Injunction of Islam. It is settled principle of law that the parties are bound by their pleadings, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Mst. Murad Begum's case" (PLD 1974 SC 322). Mere sanctioning of mutation in favour of the petitioner is not sufficient that the case may be decided in favour of the petitioner, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are valid in the eye of law and are in consonance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Muhammad Shafi's case" (PLD 1986 SC 519). As mentioned above, both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner and Privy Council has laid down the following principle to interfere in the concurrent findings of the facts, while exercising powers under section 115 of C.P.C, in "N.S.Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras" (PLD 1949 PC 26):- "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon the questions of fact or law."
8. The judgment of the Privy Council is followed by this Court in "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mehmood" (1985 CLC 657). It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of this Court was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgments of both the Courts below, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the facts of the Courts below, which have been given after proper appreciation of evidence on record.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has not merit and the same is dismissed.