' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 20-2-2002, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No,88-D of 1997.
2. Late Ismaeel, father of the parties, was owner of the suit-land measuring 143 Kanals and 2 Marlas, who alienated the same to the petitioner by way of oral gift Mutation No,342 dated 19-8-1993.' The respondents Nos.1 and 2 being daughters, of late Ismaeel, instituted a suit for declaration with perpetual injunction calling in question the validity of the aforesaid mutation of gift. The suit was contested by the petitioner. The Civil Judge, Shakargarh after framing necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the respondents Nos.1 and 2, by judgment and decree dated 5-10-1994. However, their appeal thereagainst was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Shakargarh, by judgment and decree dated 10-12-1996, whereby the suit of the said respondents was decreed in their favour and the judgment and decree dated 5-10-1994 passed by the trial Court was set aside. Therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No,88-D of 1997, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by the impugned judgment, dated 20-2-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that late Ismaeel, father of the parties, appeared as D.W.2 and supported the factum of transaction of gift and the delivery of possession of the suit-land to the petitioner in accordance with the principles of Muhammadan Law. It was next contended that the owner of the property had a right to alienate the same under the Muslim Law during his life time in favour of some of his legal heirs, even if the consequence would be to deprive the other legal heirs,. Reliance was placed on the cases of Noor Muhammad Khan and 3 others, v. Habibullah Khan and 27 others, PLD 1994 SC 650 and Fakhur-ud-Din v. Mst.
Zohra Bi 1998 SCMR 2017. The learned counsel argued that the High Court had not taken into consideration the reasoning given by the trial Court as the findings of fact by the Courts below were at variance. The mere old age of late Ismaeel D.W.2, father of the parties, was not sufficient to impeach the validity of the gift of the suit-land in favour of the petitioner. It was lastly argued that the donor had admitted delivery of possession of the suit-land to the petitioner, a donee, which factum was also reflected in the Revenue Record. All the ingredients of a valid gift had been fulfilled. The civil suit of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 was rightly dismissed by the trial Court which ought not have been interfered with by the First Appellate Court as well as by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the relevant record. We find that the gift Mutation No,342 (Exh.P.1) does not indicate the delivery of possession of suit-land by the alleged donor Ismaeel in favour of the petitioner. Even the copy of the daily report made by the Halqa Patwari for making the entry of transaction of the alleged gift was not produced by the petitioner in support of his plea of delivery of possession of the gifted property. The donor Ismaeel was admittedly about the age of 80 years, at the relevant time.
Muhammad Hanif, D.W.3, admitted that, at the relevant time, an injunctive order had also been issued by the Lahore High Court, restraining the change of possession of the suit-land on account of consolidation operations of the village. Therefore, the question of delivery of possession of the suit-land did not arise. The High Court as well as the First Appellate Court recorded concurrent findings of fact on the basis of evidence on record that the delivery of possession of the suit-land by the donor Ismaeel in favour of the petitioner, being essential ingredient of gift, was not proved at all. Ordinarily, we are not expected to substitute our findings for those recorded by the High Court in the absence of any exceptional circumstance. Needless to observe that in rural areas, there is a common practice to deprive the female legal heirs, of their due share of properties of their parents by various devices which practice was deprecated by this Court in the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others, v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1. We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.