' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 2- 3-2000 passed by learned District Judge, Faisalabad whereby appeal brought by respondents against the judgment dated 10-3-1999 passed by learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad was accepted.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition ale that petitioners filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of suit-land (measuring 78 Kanals Khewat Nos.7, 14 and 12 situated in Chak No.269/RB Tehsil and District Faisalabad) on the basis of oral gift (Hiba) in favour of Noor Fatima daughter of Ismail (predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs and defendant No.15) and that mortgage Mutation No.339 dated 23-1-1933 is void and ineffective qua their rights. The petitioners stated that Mst. Noor Fatima was daughter of Muhammad Ismail son of Ghulam Muhammad. They further stated that after the death of Muhammad Ismail the grandfather of Noor Fatima gave her hand in marriage to Ghulam Nabi (plaintiff) in the year 1928. The petitioners averred that at the time of her marriage Ghulam Muhammad transferred suit-land in favour of Mst Noor Fatima by way of gift but in view of Riwaj-e-Aam (custom) preventing alienation of suit-land through gift to Noor Fatima. Mortgage Mutation No 339 dated 23 -1-1933 was attested despite the fact that Ghulam Muhammad was not in need of money and Mst. Noor Fatima too had no amount, therefore, entry regarding mortgage is wrong. The plaintiffs/ petitioners stated that due to mortgage mutation defendants Nos.1 and 2 (Mukhtar-ul-Hassan and Manzoor Hussain) filed application for redemption of suit-land despite the fact that the same had been transferred in favour of Mst. Noor Fatima by way of gift, The respondents/defendants mentioned in written statement that suit-land was mortgaged vide Mutation No.339 dated 23-1-1933 and entries in the Revenue Record too supported their version. They further stated that they filed application for redemption of suit land but Collector dismissed the same due to pendency of civil suit and now their appeal is pending before Commissioner. Also that Mst. Noor Fatima had never challenged the mutation in question before Civil Court during her lifetime and that plaintiffs have filed suit during the pendency of their application for redemption of suit-land. Learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and decreed the suit brought by respondents vide judgment dated 10-3-1999.
The respondents filed appeal thereagainst which was accepted vide judgment dated 2-3-2000 passed by learned District Judge, Faisalabad.
' Hence this revision petition.
' Notice was issued to the respondents but their counsel did not enter appearance at the hearing of the case, therefore, they, were proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above the case of petitioners was that Ghulam Muhammad son of Shadi was owner of suit-land and he transferred the same in favour of his granddaugher (Mst. Noor Fatima daughter of Ismail) by way of gift (Hiba) at the time of her marriage, Also that in view of Riwaj-e- Aam (custom) preventing transfer of land in favour of Mst. Noor Fatima mortgage Mutation (No.339) was sanctioned in her favour. It is pertinent to note that petitioners/plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show that actually Ghulam Muhammad son of Shadi had transferred suit land in favour of Mst. Noor Fatima by way of gift. The plaintiffs examined P.W,1, Ghulam Hussain and P.W.2 Mubarak Ali in support of their version. However none of them stated that in his presence Ghulam Muhammad declared that he had transferred suit-land by way of gift Likewise no evidence has been produced to show that Ghulam Muhammad delivered possession of suit-land to Mst. Noor Fatima on the basis of gift. The record does not support the case of petitioners because since year 1933 there is entry of mortgage in the revenue record. The most important aspect of the case is that Mst. Noor Fatima was married to Ghulam Nabi in the year 1928 but mortgage mutation was sanctioned in the year 1933. The petitioners have not brought on record the detail of alleged custom. So in the circumstances of the case I find that petitioners/plaintiffs have failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of their case. As such their claim is baseless. So learned trial Court illegally decreed the suit brought by petitioners/plaintiffs. As such learned District Judge, Faisalabad has rightly accepted the appeal brought by respondents and dismissed the suit brought by petitioners/plaintiffs. Para. No.5 of the judgment dated 2-3-2000 reads as under: -- "The perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence only establishes one thing that the deceased Ms. Noor Fatima was married in the year 1928 with Ghulam Nabi and then on 23-1-1933 a mutation of mortgage of land for consideration of Rs.4,000 was incorporated in the Revenue Record. This mutation was attested about five years after the marriage of deceased Noor Fatima. It was, therefore, for the respondents/plaintiffs to lead a cogent evidence that at the time of marriage, the deceased Mst. Noor Fatima was given the disputed property by way of Hiba. No person has been examined as a witness to show that he was present at the time of marriage of the deceased Noor Fatima in the year 1928 and in his presence the deceased Ghulam Muhammad expressed the intention of transferring the disputed property by way of Hiba to deceased Noor Fatima. According to the plaint, the transaction of Hiba took place in the year 1928 and it was for the respondents/plaintiffs to prove the factum of Hiba and there is no cogent evidence on the record worth the name on the basis of which it can be held that in the year 1928 at the time of marriage of the deceased Noor Fatima, the deceased Ghulam Muhammad declared that he had transferred the property by way of Hiba to the deceased Noor Fatima in the year 1928. There is, therefore, a gap of 4 to 5 years in the transaction of mortgage incorporated in the Mutation No.339 and the marriage of the deceased Noor Fatima and the oral evidence does not link the transaction of mortgage with the declaration allegedly made at the time of marriage, of the deceased Noor Fatima. Once a mortgage is always mortgage and it was for the respondents/plaintiffs to prove that this mortgage was entered in view of some custom preventing the alienation of property by way of Hiba to deceased Noor Fatima and there is no evidence of the custom existing at that time and alleged in paragraph No.2 of the plaint. The inference which the respondents want to draw on the basis of facts stated in the plaint does not flow from the oral and documentary evidence on the record. It is therefore, not proved that the property, in dispute was given by way of gift to deceased Noor Fatima and there is no other evidence to justify the cancellation of Mutation No. 339 dated 23- 1-1933. The findings of learned Civil Judge on Issues 9, 10 b and 11 are erroneous and these cannot be upheld. The findings on these issues are set aside and these issues are decided against the respondents/plaintiffs".
It is well-reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. In these circumstances I find that there is no justification to set aside the impugned judgment.
The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.