' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The appellant-plaintiff impugns the judgment and decree of the learned Court of first appeal, dated 6-3-2006 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court, dated 26-2-1996 was reversed and a declaratory suit filed by the appellant to impugn the gift mutation No,1689 (Exh. P-6) and subsequent mutation was dismissed.
2. The appellant was married to Mst. Shaheen Khanum (respondent No,2) who is the daughter of Ch. Muhammad Sharif deceased (respondent No,1) (now represented by his L.Rs,). The appellant was owner of the suit-land measuring 122 kanals approximately. He constituted his father-in-law (respondent No,1) as his general attorney vide power of attorney (Exh.P-5), dated 31-12-1991.
Through this instrument, he, inter alia, authorized respondent No,1 to alienate, sell and gift the suit property. In exercise of the power vested in him, respondent No,1 gifted the suit property to his daughter respondent No,2 vide impugned mutation (Exh.P-6).
3. Thereafter through three separate sale deeds, dated 19-2-1992 (Exh.P-8), 10-4-1992 (Exh. P-9) and 10-4-1992 (Exh.P-10) respondent No,2 sold the entire suit property to Alaf Din (Respondent No,3), Bagh Din deceased (respondent No,4) (now represented by his L.Rs) and Abdul Ghani (respondent No,5).
4. It is in the above circumstances that the appellant filed his declaratory suit to challenge the gift in favor of respondent No,2 and the three subsequent sales noted above. It was his case that the gift made by respondent No,1 in favor of respondent No,2 was devoid of consideration and the three essential ingredients of a valid gift. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants.
5. The learned trial Court framed five issues of which issue No,4 is the most relevant. This issue was framed in the following terms:-- Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree in his favor to the extent that oral mutation of gift in the register of mutation of Monza Machhike, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, entered at No,1689 and sanctioned on 26-1-1992, is void, illegal and of no lawful effect and similarly the transactions made in favor of defendants Nos. 3 to 5 on the basis of said mutation are also void ab initio along with injunction? OPP.
6. The parties led evidence. The learned trial Court decreed thesuit of the appellant declaring the gift and subsequent sales to be void. However, as noted above, the learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the appellant.
7. I have gone through the impugned judgment and have considered the reasons which prevailed with the learned Court. The impugned appellate judgment is well reasoned and is consistent with the evidence on record.
8. The main-stay of the argument advanced on behalf of the -appellant was that there was no love and affection between the appellant and respondent No,2 and, therefore, a gift to the said respondent could not have flowed from any intention on the part of appellant. This contention, however, is misconceived. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the evidence on record to show that although the relationship between the appellant and respondent No,1 was strained, a patch upon had been worked out between them in an effort to save the marriage and as a part of this arrangement, the appellant had executed a power of attorney authorizing his father-in-law (respondent No,1) to make a gift of the suit-land in favor of respondent No,2. The learned appellate Court has considered the available evidence and has rightly concluded that there was a definite intention on the part of the appellant to gift the suit property to respondent No,2. The answer to a suggestion (reproduced in the appellate judgment) given by M.A. Rauf (D.W.3) also clearly shows that the appellant had intended the gift to be made in favor of respondent No,2.
9. In the foregoing circumstances, I find the impugned judgment and decree to be unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show the existence of any grounds mentioned in section 100, C.P.C. To justify interference in the impugned decree. This appeal, as a consequence, is dismissed with costs.