' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.-~ On 1^-12-1992 Mst. Ayesha Bibi, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff)-filed a suit against the petitioner^ as well as Noor Ahmad who was husband of the petitioner No.l and father of the other respondents. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit-Jand as detailed in para 1 thereof. She is an illiterate, simple village folk. Noor Ahmad was her cousin (Tayazad) and was married to her sister i.e. Mst. Maryam Bibi petitioner No.l. She had not been residing in the Chak in question and the land was being looked after by the said Noor Ahmad. When the children i.e. Petitioners Nos.3 and 4 were grew up they also started cultivating the land along with their father and had been paying the due share of the plaintiff. A month ago, when she went to collect the share for Kharif, 1992, the petitioners started dilly dallying whereupon she checked up the record and found that Noor Ahmad had got transferred her share vide Mutation No.42 attested on 28-4- 1963. According to her, she never gifted her land to Noor Ahmad and did not get the mutation entered and never appeared before any Revenue Officer and she never delivered possession. On the basis of the said mutation Noor Ahmad had gifted away her land to the present petitioners vide registered gift deed dated 28-10-1976 which has been incorporated in the revenue records vide Mutation No.334 attested on 28-6-1977 as detailed in paras.7, 8 and 9 of the plaint. All the said transactions were stated to be illegal and void and a declaration was sought accordingly. The petitioners in their written statement pleaded a valid gift of the land belonging to the plaintiff in their favour. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 30-4-1998. I may note here that the main issue on merits i.e. Issue No,5-A regarding the factum of the valid gift by the plaintiff in favour of Noor Ahmad was found by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. Similarly, the subsequent mutations were found to be illegal and void. However, the suit was dismissed primarily on the ground that it was barred by time and that the form of the suit is not correct as she is not in possession. Meanwhile the plaintiff had died. The respondents filed a first appeal while the petitioners also filed cross-objections questioning the findings on said main issues on merits. The case was heard by a learned A.D.J.-I, Pakpattan Sharif, who allowed the first appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the cross- objections filed by the petitioners. This was done vide judgment and decree dated 3-7-2002.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the evidence on record has been misread by the learned Courts below. According to him, the deceased-plaintiff had herself admitted in the witness-box that she had made a valid gift in favour of Noor Ahmad deceased. According to them, the suit was barred by time. The learned counsel for the respondents who has put in appearance in response to a pre-admission notice supports the impugned judgment and decree with reference to the evidence on record.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have already noted above the respective pleadings of the parties. Whereas the deceased-plaintiff had denied having made a gift of her land in favour of Noor Ahmad, the case of the petitioners was that she had validly made a gift in his favour. The burden of issue No.5-A was correctly placed upon the petitioners to prove a valid gift in their favour by the plaintiff.
4. Both the learned Courts below have found the issue against the petitioners. I have also examined the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and I do not find any inis- reading or non-reading thereof by the learned Courts below. There is no evidence of the actual making of gift regarding which the mutation was got attested. Further, there is no evidence that the plaintiff did appear before the Revenue Officer at the time of attestation. The more significant aspect of the case is that the plaintiff had a son who is now a party to this case. No reason whatsoever is forthcoming on the record as to why she proceeded to gift away her entire land to Noor Ahmad, brother-in-law when she had a son of her own and, of course, a husband. To my mind, this is a case of no evidence.
5. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel, he has read out the statement made by- Mst. Ayesha the deceased-plaintiff as P.W.l. In her examination-in-chief, she categorically stated that she never gifted her land to Noor Ahmad. In cross-examination, she denied the straight suggestion that she had gifted her land to Noor Ahmad 31/32 years ago. She also denied that she along with her sister Maryam reported the gift to the Patwari and she also denied that she appeared before the Tehsildar to acknowledge the gift. She denied having executed the affidavit Exh.b.l. The relevant portion being relied upon by the learned counsel is at page 32 of the paper book. However, what is being termed as an admission, was deleted by the learned Judge recording the evidence and the deletion bears his initials. When confronted learned counsel admits that the admission was wrongly recorded and was deleted by the learned Judge in presence of the parties.
Even otherwise the said deleted sentence does not fit-in in the over all statement of the lady which is spread over several pages.
6. Admittedly, the plaintiff was the owner of the said land. It has been found as a fact that the gift was never made. Noor Ahmad, of course, was a co-sharer of the said lady. In fact, she has herself stated that she was not residing in the village in question and Noor Ahmad was looking after her land and when his sons grew up they started cultivating the same. She will, therefore, be deemed to be in possession of each and every inch of the land. There is no question of the suit being barred by time and, of course, there was nothing wrong with its form. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.