' TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.---Atta Muhammad predecessorin-interest of the parties was the owner cf the suit property detailed in the plaint. The said Atta Muhammad died on 31-8-1987. Upon his death, he was survived by Ahmad Din, Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Rafique sons and Mst. Rehma Bibi, Mst. Niamat Bibi and Mst. Zainab Bibi daughters. Ahmad Din and Muhammad Rafique filed a suit for declaration seeking to challenge the registered gift-deed made by Atta Muhammad in favour of Abdul Rashid in respect of the suit-:and. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26-6-1992 by the learned trial Court. The appeal filed against the said decree was accepted with the result that the suit stood decreed. The present Civil Revision is preferred against the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in the favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
2. Briefly the facts are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the registered gift deed dated 25-11-1986 allegedly executed by their predecessor-in-interest Atta Muhammad in favour of Abdul Rashid petitioner herein was illegal, result of fraud and misrepresentation and ineffective upon the rights of the other legal heirs of Atta Muhammad namely respondents Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 (daughters of Atta Muhammad).
3. The suit was contested by Abdul Rashid. The daughter of Ata Muhammad conceded and acknowledge that the registered gift-deed in favour of Abdul Rashid was a valid document.
4. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit by their words and conduct? OPD.
(5) Whether the Hiba Nama dated 25-11-1986 is void, illegal and against the interest of plaintiffs?
OPP.
(5A)Whether the alleged gift deed dated 25-11-1986 in favour of the defendant was executed with free-will and consent of the donor? OPD.
(5B) If Issue No,5-I is replied in negative, whether donor was physically misfit and had not physical and mental capability to execute the alleged gift-deed due to his ill-health and old age, if so, its effect? OPD.
(5C) Whether the deceased donor was under undue pressure and as such has due to fraud and misrepresentation, the impugned gift was got executed with mala fide intention to deprive the plaintiffs from the inheritance under the Muslim Law? OPP.
(6) Whether the defendant No,1 had been occupying the land till the death of Atta Muhammad?
OPD.
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for? OPP.
(8) Relief.
5. In support of their contention, the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 produced Sawal Din son of Munshi Khan as P.W.1 while Muhammad Rafique one of the plaintiffs appeared as his own witness as P.W.2. In documentary evidence, respondents Nos.1 and 2 produced copy of Register Haqdaran- a-Zamin Exh.P.1 and copy of death certificate of Atta Muhammad Exh.P.2.
' On the other hand, Abdul Majid appeared as D.W.1, Ghulam Qadir as D.W.2 while Abdul Rashid petitioner as his own witness as D.W.3. In documentary evidence, the petitioner/defendant produced certified copy of the registered gift deed as Exh.D. I, copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zamin Exh.D.2, copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.3, copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zamin Exh.D.4., copy of Khasra Girdvari from Kahrif 1986 onwards as Exh.D.5 and Exh.D.6.
6. After appraisal of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26-1-1992 found Issues Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6 and 7 against the plaintiffs. It was found that the gift kvas validly made in favour of the petitioner as all the ingredients of a valid gift were fulfilled.
7. Respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and upon reconsideration of the case in hand came to the conclusion that the petitioner/defendant has not been able to establish the necessary ingredients of a valid gift. It was held that in particular the offer the making of the gift by the donor nor its acceptance by the donee nor indeed the delivery of physical possession of the property was proved on the record. Resultantly, the appeal was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 17-10-1995 with the result that the declaratory suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2 stood decreed in their favour..
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence produced by the plaintiff was not sufficient to vitiate the registered gift-deed Exh.D.1. He referred to the statement of P.W.1 and contended that the said statement was not sufficient to strike down the registered gift-deed. It is submitted that the gift-deed was duly signed by the witnesses and registered in accordance with law in the presence of attesting witnesses. According to him, it was incumbent upon the respondents/plaintiffs to have produced such cogent evidence which could prove that Atta Muhammad in fact did not appear before the Sub-Registrar and that.The proceedings of registration were the result of fraud and misrepresentation. On the other hand, he contends that the gift-deed being a registered document, presumption of correctness and validity shall attach to it and the onus was rightly placed upon the plaintiffs to prove otherwise. From the evidence on the record, both oral and documentary, the respondents have not been able to discharge the heavy onus placed upon them. It is further submitted that all the three daughters have acknowledged the gift in favour of the petitioner. He has further submitted that even Ahmad Din the deceased respondent No,1 never appeared as a witness before the trial Court and that this was even admitted by Sawal Din P.W.1.
' As regards possession, it is submitted that the possession was simultaneously handed over to the petitioner at the time of execution of the gift-deed and it is evident from the copy of Khasra Girdavari for Kharif 1987 (Exh.D.5).
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 contends that the registered gift-deed is of no legal effect as it is nowhere on the record that the donor has affixed his signatures/thumb-impression in the presence of any of the witnesses produced by the petitioner before the learned trial Court; that it was the duty of the petitioner to have affirmatively proved the execution of the registered gift-deed; that there was no tacit acceptance of the gift by the donee and that there was no proof of the actual delivery of the physical possession of the property in suit.
10. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
11. The parties are the legal heirs of the late Atta Muhammad. It is not disputed that Atta Muhammad died in the year 1987. This is also borne out from an extract from the register of deaths Exh.P.2. There is also no cavil with the proposition that said Atta Muhammad was the exclusive owner of the suit property. However, the claim of the petitioner is that the suit property was transferred to him by way of the registered gift-deed dated 25-11-1986 whereafter he became the sole owner of the property in suit. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 did not accept the claim of the petitioner and challenged the same through the suit in hand. The main attack against the gift- deed was that none of the three ingredients of a Muslim gift i.e, offer by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of actual physical possession were established.
12. After perusal of the registered gift-deed Exh.D.1, it becomes manifest that it purportedly bears the thumb-impression of Atta Muhammad donor. It is endorsed by Abdul Hamid as a witness who has appeared as D.W.1 and identified his signatures thereupon as Exh.D1/1. The offer of gift has been accepted by Muhammad Tufail son of Ghulam Ghous on behalf of Abdul Rashid petitioner/donee.
As far as the offer and acceptance of the gift are concerned, the gift-deed does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
13. Reference is made to the requirement of making of valid Muslim gift wherein the acceptance of a valid gift may either be expressly or impliedly. Indeed the case of the petitioner is throughout been that the gift made in his favour was lawful and valid. The assumption of title of the petitioner on the basis of this gift-deed was the subject-matter of the suit which was filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 to vitiate the said gift deed. It is idle for respondents Nos.1 and 2 to contend that there was no acceptance of the gift by the donee and the same contention of respondents Nos.1 and 2 is hereby repelled.
14. There is also no force in the submission that the actual physical possession of the suit property was not handed over to the petitioner. A copy of the Register Haqdaran-e-Zamin Exh.P.1 would itself shows that the suit-land which was originally in the name of Atta Muhammad stood transferred in favour of the petitioner through mutation of gift entered on the basis of the registered gift-deed.
The copies of the Khasra Girdavari for the suit-land Exh.D.5 would show that the cultivating possession of the petitioner was shown from Kharif 1987 onwards and this corroborates the factum of gift which was executed on 25-11-1986. Although there is no cavil with the proposition that mere recital in the deed is not sufficient to prove the actual delivery of the physical possession, there is enough material on the record in the shape of oral and documentary evidence (particularly Exh.D.5) to show that this ingredient of a valid gift was also established on the record. There is no force in the submission that as the donee did not sign the gift-deed it would in any manner affect the validity of the same.
15. In view of the foregoing, the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are not liable to be sustained. Resultantly, this Civil Revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court dated 17-10-1995 is set aside. The parties to bear their own costs.