' On 5-4-1980, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint it was stated that the suit-land mentioned therein was owned by Sabir Ali, the brother of the respondent, who sold it to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs,4,000. However, the transaction was disguised as a gift by means of a registered document, dated 20-2-1980. A decree for possession by pre-emption was accordingly sought. In his written statement the petitioner stated that the transaction is genuinely a gift as Sabir Ali was his friend and that he has been rendering services. He also stated that he had given financial aid to the said Sabir Ali. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 6-12-1982. A first appeal filed by respondent No,1 was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Sahiwal on 19-3-1986, who passed a decree in favour of the respondent subject to deposit of Rs,7,500.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Additional District Judge has resorted to conjectures and surmises, while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. According to him, sufficient evidence is on record to show that the gift is a real transaction. No one has turned up for the respondent.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the pleadings of the parties.
Now, the established facts on record are that whereas the respondent is the brother of the said Sabir Ali, the petitioner does not claim any relationship; neither is there one. According to his pleadings he is a friend of the donor and had been rendering services and also giving financial assistance. The respondent examined himself and also produced two P. Ws. The circumstances brought on record are that earlier also, the said Sabir Ali had sold some land to Muhammad Din petitioner which was subjected to pre-emption suit by a son of the respondent. The present transaction took place during the pendency of the said suit. Further statement is that no services were rendered by the petitioner to Sabir Ali. Now the petitioner as a witness has admitted the facts regarding earlier transaction and the pre-emption suit filed by the son of the respondent. What is apparent on the face of the record is that in the backdrop of the said factum of gift, the impression one receives from the evidence on record is that Sabir Ali was not even known to the petitioner and certainly not well-known to him. Now it has come on record that Sabir Ali had transferred his entire land in the village. In .The cross-examination the petitioner has expressed complete ignorance as to the whereabouts of Sabir Ali, Of course, no convincing evidence of rendering services and the nature of financial aid which has its own implications as observed by the learned Additional District Judge is there on the record.
4. I may further note here that the legal position stated in his judgment by the learned Additional District Judge with reference to the case of Sardara v. Muhammad Abid 1985 M LD 467 stands further confirmed by this Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool v. Muhammad Hafeez and 2 others 1996 CLC 1161. The criterian laid down is that the Court, while determining the nature of transaction, should look into the relationship between the donor and the donee; the reasons which had motivated the donor to part with his property without any consideration, financial position of the donor and the fact as to whether he owned some other property and had legal heirs or not. To my mind the learned Additional District Judge has examined the case in accordance with the said criteria and his conclusions are supported by the evidence and the circumstances available on record. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.