' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 4-3-1982 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents and in the plaint it was stated that the suit-land, mentioned In the plaint and located within the municipal limit of Mian Channu devolved upon her after the death of her father. Her brothers namely respondent No,1 and Siraj, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 6 got attested a.
Gift Mutation No,20, dated 19-4-1964 after getting Report No,361 entered on 7-4-1964. According to the petitioner lady she had never made a gift in favour of her said brothers and had never appeared before any revenue officer in the matter of said mutation. According to her she came to know about the said mutation in the year, 1981 and immediately filed an appeal which was accepted. However, an Additional Commissioner allowed the . Appeal of the respondents and directed the parties to approach Civil Court. According to her she is married lady with male children and she had no reason, whatsoever, to gift the property to her brothers. In their written statements the respondents asserted positively that the lady appeared before the revenue officer and got the mutation attested. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(2) Whether suit is bad for mis. Joinder of parties? OPD
(3) Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the suit? OPD
(4) Whether defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD (4-A) Whether Mutation No,20 ,dated 19-4-1964 is incorrect, against law and facts, based on fraud and forgery, null and void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and liable to be set aside and order of A.C., dated 1-2-1982 is also incorrect, against law and facts and liable to be set aside?
OPP (4-B) Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit-land and entitled to the decree prayed for? OPP (4-C) Whether plaintiff validly gifted away the disputed land in favour of Muhammad Shafi and Siraj Din? OPD
(5) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree, dated 12-12-1987 the learned trial Court found Issues Nos.1, 4-C, 4-A and 4-B in favour of the respondents while the remaining issues were answered in favour of the petitioner. The suit was dismissed. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal who reversed the findings on Issue No,1 and found the suit to be competent but affirmed the findings on the remaining issues.
Tire appeal was accordingly dismissed on 12-7-1989.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below in particular the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal treated the mutation to be sacrosanct document notwithstanding the law declared by the superior judiciary to the contrary. According to the learned counsel there was no evidence for a valid gift or a mutation on record. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the impugned Judgments and Decrees urging that it was for the petitioner to prove fraud and that the main issue on merits has been correctly decided.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now as noted by me above, the petitioner had specifically denied having made any gift or having gone before any Revenue Officer to state in favour of her brothers. The defendants had on the other hand categorically stated that she made a valid gift in their favour and got the mutation attested. The burden of Issue No,4-C was thus correctly placed upon the respondents and it was rather heavy. Now so far as the learned trial Court is concerned, after referring to the evidence on record he has abruptly concluded that all the witnesses produced by the respondents have supported their case. Now so far as the learned Additional District Judge is concerned, he has been impressed with the testimony of Nawab Din Lambardar who had identified the lady before the Tehsildar.
4. Now I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and I do find that the same has been misread. Now the said Nawab Din appearing as D.W.4 proceeded to state that the petitioner lady met him one fine morning and told him that she has to gift her land to brothers Shafi and Siraj Din and that he should go to the Patwari whereupon he went to the Patwari and got the report entered at No,361 and signed the same. Thereafter the Tehsildar came to the Chak and Mst. Siraj Bibi appeared and he identified her. In his cross- examination he admitted that Mst. Siraj Bibi was married at that time but he was not aware as to whether she had a child or not. Now Shafi respondent appeared as D.W.8. Now he proceeded to state that the said report was got entered by the petitioner lady herself who accompanied them to the Patwari. To my mind apart from the fact that Nawab Din has no business to get the gift recorded, the said Shafi himself completely belies his testimony. So far as the two other chance witnesses i.e, Ghulam Nabi and Faqir Muhammad D.Ws. 6 and 5 are concerned, suffice it to say that whereas they stated that the plaintiff lady went inside the room where the Tehsildar was sitting the said Shafi stated that there was no room and the Tehsildar conducted the proceedings while sitting under a tree.
5. Apart from the said discrepancies apparent, on the face of the record, the entire written statement and the entire evidence led by the respondents is silent as to why the petitioner gifted the land to them. Admittedly she was married and also has male children. Nothing has been suggested to her as well in the witness box as to why she made the gift. Now this circumstance has attained much importance and has been duly taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Barkat Ali through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Ismail through Legal Heirs and others (2002, SCMR 1938). Learned counsel though tried to argue that the suit was brought 18 years after the mutation and that possession has throughout been with the brother, nothing turn on the same in view of the law laid down in the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst.
Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1). Needless to state that there is not an iota of evidence as to declaration of the gift, its acceptance and delivery of possession thereunder. I, therefore, find it to be a case of no evidence and the impugned judgments to be the results of gross misreading of evidence on record. The civil revision accordingly is allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is decreed as prayed for against the respondents.