MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 5-6-1998, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint, it was stated that the last owner of the suit-land detailed in the plaint was Khalim Gull. He was survived by the respondent, petitioner No.1 and Muhammad Iqbal (Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 9 as sons and petitioner No.10 as widow). After the death of Khalim Gull in the year 1977, said two brothers assured the respondents and their mother that the inheritance mutation has been got attested. About 10 days before the institution of the suit, the respondent needed copies of the Revenue Records and it revealed that a gift Mutation No.30 has been attested on 16-2-1969 in favour of said two brothers. It was stated that his father never made any gift. No declaration was made. There was no acceptance and no delivery of possession. It was further pointed out that in the said mutation the name of the respondent was omitted while the said persons declared their own mother to be dead. The deceased never appeared before the Revenue Officer. A declaration was accordingly sought that the respondent is co-owner in the suit-land and the said mutation is void. Now the petitioners filed written statement. Now the plea taken was that the land was owned by Provincial Government and was put to auction. At that time the respondent was in any. The deceased sent Muhammad Ali son of Hayat informing the respondent that he is purchasing the land A for which the amount has been provided by the said two sons and in case the respondent wants to get a share he should pay the money accordingly. The respondent refused and consequently the land was auctioned in favour of Khalim Gull and was transferred by way of gift in acknowledgment of the said facts. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit on 31-5-2003. Learned Additional District Judge, Mailsi, dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner on 9-3-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that notwithstanding the said state of affairs and evident on record, as noted by the learned Courts below, the fact remains that the father gifted the land to two sons by means of mutation and the Courts below have acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners cannot walk out of their pleadings which they have failed to prove and even otherwise mutation on the face of it is false and fabricated.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now I have already narrated above, the material contents of the pleadings of the parties and particularly the written statement filed by petitioner.
Now admittedly the respondent is brother of the alleged donees. He questioned the existence and validity of the said gift. The petitioner took a specific plea stating the reasons as to why the gift was made and these have already been reproduced above. I may refer here to the following observations of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Barkat Ali through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Ismail through Legal Heirs 2002 SCM R 1938 appearing in para.5 of the judgment at page 1942 of the report: "... Though it is not necessary for a donor to furnish the reasons for making a gift yet no gift in the ordinary course of human conduct is made without reason or justification unless the donor is divested of all the power of reasoning and logic and unless he is a person of unsound mind. In the were of frivolous gifts generally made to deprive females in the family from the course of inheritance prevalent at present times, the Courts are not divested of the powers to scrutinize the reasons and justification for a gift so that no injustice is done to the rightful owners and no course of inheritance is bypassed."
Now Salim Khan, petitioner No.1, appeared as D.W.1. In his examination-in-chief, he did not at all refer to the said contents of his written statement. On the other hand, he stated that the respondent was a disobedient son. Now the cross-examiner who was alive to the said contents of the pleadings confronted the said petitioner accordingly and he responded that the land was purchased in auction by his father in the year 1958. And at that time he was 14 years of age. In the same year his father paid the bid money and this amount was paid by his father in instalments at the Patwar Headquarter. He does not remember as to how much money his father paid for the land. It will thus, be seen that the said reasoning stated in the written statement by the petitioners for the alleged gift by the father in favour of his two sons stands completely belied.
4. To my mind the decree passed in favour of the respondent is sustainable upon reading of the said evidence of the petitioner No.1 and the contents of the written statement filed by the petitioners. However, I have examined the other evidence as well. The gift Mutation No.30 is Exh.D.1.
In the remarks column it has been recorded by the Patwari on 17-1-1969 that mutation is being entered with reference to a report. The number and date has been left blank. Needless to state such a report or its copy has not been produced. A pedigree-table has been drawn up on the mutation to show that Mst. Halima (present petitioner No. 10) mother of donees is dead. This is a false statement and is admitted by the petitioner himself as D. W.1. The order of the Revenue Officer dated 6-2-1969 reflects that Khalim Gull and Muhammad Iqbal have been identified by Abdul Rehman's, Lambardar and Haji Ghulam Rasul and the factum of gift has been admitted. Now according to the petitioner No. 1 as D.W. I said Abdul Rchman, Lambardar, is dead but the Patwari is alive. Later death entry of Haji Ghulam Rasul was produced who died on 24-1-1999. Now the Patwari appeared as D.W.2. However, the record of original mutation and particularly Roznamcha Waqiati were not produced. He stated that the mutation Exh. D.1 was entered by him and was attested on 6-2-1969 by the Revenue Officer. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know Khalim Gull personally and he was not resident of Chak No.136 and he does not know anything about him.
He does not know any of the parties to the said mutation. D.W.4 is Allah Ditta, a retired Patwari who has stated that he had compared the entries in the mutation and it bears his signatures. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that none of the parties appeared before him. Now the fact remains that there is no evidence at all on record as to whether any declaration of gift was made by Khalim Gull or it was accepted by the said alleged donees or that possession was delivered under gift.
5. Having thus, examined the records, I do not find any grounds being made out for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C. Civil Revision accordingly is dismissed with no orders as to costs.