MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.- Through this civil revision, the petitioner Mst. Salaman Bibi has called in question judgment and decree dated 27-4-2002 of the learned Additional District Judge Bhakkar whereby in reversal of the trial Court's judgment and decree dated 5-4-2000 in her favour respondent No.l's appeal was accepted and her suit was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself on the legal proposition that an unregistered gift deed was unenforceable and no rights and interests flew therefrom. Further that the learned Additional District Judge also invalidly held Exh.P.1 to be an agreement to make a Hiba and not a Hiba Nama. Also contended that Khasra Gardawaris produced on record as Exh.P.E and Exh.P.4 show the petitioner to be in possession of the suit-land to the admission of the respondent wherefor gift in her favour from her late husband in 1990 through Exh.P.1 was proved.
Contrarily the learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. She was thus proceeded against ex parte through order dated 11-4-2007.
4. Heard.
5. Muhammad Yamin son of Munshi Khan was admittedly owner of 75 Kanals of land. And that he died in 1992-93. Muhammad Yamin was married to the petitioner Mst. Salaman and had no issue therefrom. Though as per the learned counsel for the parties, the exact date of death of Muhammad Yamin was not clearly stated by the respective witnesses of the parties, yet it is an admitted fact that Muhammad Yamin died. In 1992 which was stated by the respondent in the written statement as 18-1-1992. Two years after the death of Muhammad Yamin, the petitioner Mst.
Salaman filed her suit on 4-1-1994 for declaration and perpetual injunction pleading that her late husband had transferred the suit-land (75 Kanals of agricultural land) to her as gift as per Iqrar Nama Hiba dated 18-5-1990 and the possession thereto was also transferred to her wherefor none of his collaterals/respondents (defendant in the suit) were entitled. In the written statement, yespondent No.1 denied the execution of Hiba Nama by the deceased and pleaded the same to have been forged and fabricated. Further stated that the purported document (Exh.P.1) was unenforceable for being unregistered document as the same was compulsorily required to be registered under the law.
Issues were framed by the learned trial Judge. Evidence was recorded. The learned Civil Judge through judgment and decree dated 5-4-2000 decreed the petitioner's suit. On appeal of respondent No.1 Bashir Ahmad, the above said judgment and decree was reversed in acceptance of the appeal and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge ,Bhakkar. Hence the present civil revision.
6. The main grounds recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment dated 27-4-2002 were as under:-
(i) that Exh.P.1 was not a Hiba Narna but was in fact an agreement being an Iqrar Nama on a stamp paper of -Rs.10.
(ii) that the petition. Writer who appeared as P.W.1 on behalf of the petitioner admitted not to have made any entry of issuance of the stamp paper or execution of the Hiba Nama in his register and no register was submitted in the Excise Department where for neither issuance of the stamp paper nor was the execution of the gift duly proved;
(iii) that even if Exh.P1 was presumed. To be a Hiba Nama, the said document was compulsorily registerable and had not been so registered wherefor no rights and interests flew therefrom and the document could not have been admitted in evidence; and
(iv) that two attesting witnesses of the Hiba Nama had not been produced in accordance with the law to prove the said document while only one marginal witness was produced.
7. ##T##In the opinion of this Court, the basic question is as to whether the document in question i.e. Exh.P.l was compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act or not to confer rights, interests and obligations on the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the Hi|)a Nama itself was a compulsorily registerable document under the law and had not been so registered. His main contention was that as the document had been allowed to be exhibited in evidence as Exh.P.l wherefor no objection thereto could be raised by the respondent or even this Court could not go into the question once the document was duly produced and exhibited in the evidence.
I am afraid, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable and contrary to the law. A document which is compulsorily registerable is fundamentally inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon for conferring rights and interest on the parties, even if such a document was allowed to be produced in the evidence as Exh.P.1. In fact the production of the said document as "Exh.P.I. In the evidence reinforces the case of the respondent that the document was neither properly stamped nor registered under the law. Furthermore as held by the learned Additional District Judge on examination of the evidence that the issuance of stamp paper or execution of Exh.P.1 by the deceased had not been entered in the relevant register by P.W.l i.e. The petition writer/stamp vendor wherefor Exh.P.1 was a dubious and unreliable document. And that possibility of its fabrication after the death of deceased Muhammad Yamin could not be ruled out.
8. Even otherwise the document (Exh.P.1) was purportedly executed on 18-5-1990 and Muhammad Yamin died in 1992/93. No effort was made either by the donor or by the donee to get the Hiba Nama incorporated in the revenue record on the basis of purported gift deed. Had such a gift been made by the deceased in favour of his wife and the possession transferred under the gift, Muhammad Yamin himself could have ensured incorporation of the said gift in the mutation register. This Court also observes that Issue No.2 was framed on the question of legal enforceability of the purported gift deed dated 18-5-1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that an unregistered gift deed could be relied upon or referred to for vesting the rights and duties on the parties in accordance with the provisions of law.
9. Before parting with this judgment, this Court would observe that the petitioner Mst. Salaman Bibi being widow even otherwise is entitled to her share in the estate of deceased Muhammad Yamin in accordance with the provisions of Shria and Muhammadan Law.
10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 27-4-2002 of the learned Additional District Judge Bhakkar. This civil revision being meritless is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.