' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This second appeal impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court, dated 6-4-2005 and of the learned lower appellate Court, dated 5-12-2005 whereby a suit for declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case have been set-out in the impugned judgments and need not therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. The appellant-plaintiff is the brother of Imam Bakhsh deceased who was the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents. The case of the appellant was that, vide gift deed (Exh.P.1), dated 19-5- 1996, Imam Bakhsh had gifted his entire property in Mauza Qaim Bharwana and Chak No,490/JB to him. It may be noted that Imam Bakhsh died 25 days later. Both Courts below have disbelieved the appellant. It is important to note that Muhammad Inayat, who was one of the marginal witnesses to Exh.P.1, was not examined and nor was the scribe Maqsood Ahmad produced as a witness. The appellant examined Muhammad Hanif, who is one of the marginal witnesses and also produced his brother Ahmad Bakhsh as second marginal witness. Both Courts below have concluded that the name of Ahmad Bakhsh as a witness was interpolated subsequently. I have the benefit of the original record and have come to the same conclusion. It is thus clear that the learned Courts below have, for good reasons, disbelieved the factum of gift. Moreover, it is evident that respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are the sons of Imam Bakhsh deceased are minors and the appellant, as their uncle (chacha) has fabricated Exh. P.1 to deprive the orphaned children of his dead brother of their legitimate inheritance.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, I find the impugned decrees to be unexceptionable.
Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to advert to any of the grounds mentioned in section 100, C.P.C., A which would justify interference in the impugned decrees in second appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout.