' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Mst. Mansab Mai respondent filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Ali Pur in March, 1992 seeking a declaration that she was a daughter and thus an heir of Hussain Bakhsh and that Mutation No,1151 sanctioned on 31-12-1991 on the strength of a gift allegedly made by her father Hussain Bakhsh in favor of Khadim Hussain defendant-petitioner was illegal, fraudulent and consequently ineffective against her rights. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge through a judgment, dated 27-11-2001. An appeal filed against the said judgment by Khadim Hussain petitioner was dismissed affirming the findings and conclusions reached by the learned trial Judge. Both these judgments were then questioned by Khadim Hussain petitioner before the Multan Bench of Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No,190/D of 2002 which petition was dismissed in limine through order, dated 7-3-2002.
2. Hence this petition.
3. In affirming the concurrent findings of the two subordinate Courts, the learned High Court had found that the petitioner-defendant being the beneficiary of an oral gift allegedly made in his favor carried a heavy burden to prove a valid gift allegedly made by the donor. The mutation in question had been admittedly sanctioned after the death of the alleged donor. The case of the defendant- petitioner, however, was that the said gift had, in fact, been made to him about three years prior to the death of donor but it was found by all the learned Courts that he could neither prove his possession of the land in question under the said gift nor he could establish the factum of gift having been made in his favor. Besides examining the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the petitioner defendant, it had also been noticed by the learned Courts that the alleged thumb-impressions of the donor on the statement made by him which appeared on the mutation did not appear under the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 18-12-1991 when the alleged donor had made the statement in question but appeared under the orders, dated 31-12- 1991 when the alleged donor was not in this world any more.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we find that no exception could be taken to the consistent findings of the three learned Courts.
5. This petition is, therefore, without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.