' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant civil revision assailed the judgment/decree dated 20- 11-2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, whereby the appeal of respondent No.1 was accepted and her suit was decreed by reversing the judgment/ decree dated 21-6-2001 passed by trial Court.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that one Nikka alias Hassu predecessor of the parties, was owner of land measuring 15 Kanals, 15 Marlas situated in Chak No.51/TDA District Bhakkar which he allegedly gifted in favour of Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 through Mutation No.209 dated 18-10-1990. Respondent No.1 being daughter of Nikka alias Hassu filed a suit for declaration, challenging the validity of gifted mutation, dubbing the same, as fictitious, fraudulent, forged and ineffective qua her rights of inheritance. Respondent No.1 asserted that the alleged donor being aged man with ill health, was incapacitated to distinguish between his good or bad and did not appear before any Revenue Officer for making any kind of statement. Gift mutation was dubbed as result of impersonation. She also prayed a permanent injunction against the petitioners and other respondents, restraining them from alienating the property by any means whatsoever, by way of consequential relief.
3. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 being defendants in the suit, contested the same by filing their written statements wherein they raised certain preliminary objections and pleaded that Nikka alias Hassu, out of his own free-will gifted the suit-land in favour of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and they committed no fraud/forgery. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the suit after doing the needful, dismissed the suit of respondent No.1 vide his judgment/decree dated 21-6-2001.
4. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, where she succeeded as her appeal was accepted and her suit was decreed vide judgment/decree dated 22-11-2002. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record; the same has now been placed for final determination. Respondents in response to notice by this Court appeared and were represented through their counsel.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that sanctioning of mutation of gift in favour of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 on the statement of their father Nikka alias Hassu was proved through statements of D.Ws. 2 and 3 who being Lamberdar and owner of the Patti, identified the donor at the time of sanctioning of mutation, has not impressed me for multiple reasons. In the first instance, Respondent No.1 having denied making of gift by her father in her plaint as well as statement as P.W.1, onus to prove not only the factum of sanctioning of mutation, but also the transaction reflected therein, offer/acceptance of the alleged gift and delivery of possession thereunder, was shifted on the shoulder of the Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 who were beneficiaries of the same. All these ingredients of a valid gift were to be proved by the petitioners/donees as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (1998 SCM R 2124). The petitioners in order to discharge the onus of proof shifting towards them only examined three witnesses including statement of Nazeer Hussain petitioner as D.W.1., D.W.2 Saleem Akhtar was Lamberdar who deposed that age of Nikka alias Hassu was 80/82 years age and was quite healthy and intelligetit to get the mutation sanctioned. These witnesses admitted that first tour of the Revenue Officer who sanctioned the mutation, was cancelled on account of non-deposit of its official fee.
D.W.2 Muhammad Ramzan is owner of the estate who deposed to have identified the alleged donor but admitted that he did identification at the time of first tour by the Revenue Officer, which was cancelled. Nazir Hussain petitioner appeared in the witness-box as D.W.1 and stated that he along with his father Nikka alias Has,.0 and Dilshad Hussain petitioner No.1 came to Bhakkar for sanctioning of mutation but in the same breath deposed that catements were recorded in Chak No.51-TD. Besides the fact that sanctioning of mutation in presence/appearance of Nikka alias Hassu was not proved rather was belied by the statements of D.Ws. Nos. 1 to 3 as none of them uttered a single word regarding offer of gift having been made by the donor and its acceptance by the donees. There is not an iota of evidence on the file that Nika alias Hassu intentionally/ deliberately parted with his property by delivering its physical or symbolic possession. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 failed to prove any lawful gift by their father.
' Nikka alias Hassu was admittedly of 82 years of age as per statement of D.W.2 who with this advanced age and with ailing health was not proved to have been provided some independent advice, especially when the gift in question was aimed at to deprive some of the legal heirs, including Respondent No.
1. The petitioners Nos.1 and 2 had claimed gift by their father in lieu of services rendered by them but Nazeer Hussain the petitioner himself admitted during his cross-examination as D.W.1 that this parents reside at Chak Patakan, located at distance of two furlongs from his Chak No.51; where they were residing at different Deras. Alike statement was made by D.W 2 that the alleged donor and the donees were residing at different places in different Chaks. Evidence of the petitioners itself disproved of their stance of rendering service to Nikkah alias Hassu. Above all none of the officials, who sanctioned the gift mutation, was summoned/examined by the petitioners in support of their stance.
6. It is common practice amongst the agriculturalists to deprive females from their rights of inheritance, which was deprecated by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1). Donees, sons of the owner, attempted to deprive Respondent No.1 who was their sole sister, from her vested right of inheritance but they failed in their design where, why and how the gift was made in as they could not establish that when, their favour and in absence of any such proof, help of petitioner No.3 their mother, was of no avail, as she had not appeared as a witness on their behalf. Scan of evidence revealed that appellate Court correctly appraised the evidence on the file and rightly concluded the lis without committing any illegality/irregularity in terms of section 115, C.P.C.
7. For the reasons noted above, no exception to the appellate judgment dated 22-11-2002 could be taken and the same being in consonance with the evidence on the file, deserved to be maintained.
Consequently, instant petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.