' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.-A declaratory decree qua the suit property was granted by the learned trial Court on 21-11-1996 which was reversed by the learned appellate Court on 16-2-2000. This is revision petition qua the same by the defendant in the suit.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. The suit property belonged initially to Muhammad Azam, who had two sons Rahim Bukhsh and Muhammad Yasin, both the sons claimed gifts in their favour by their father. The case of successors of Rahim Bukhsh plaintiff was that the suit property belonged to them in view of the oral gift made by Muhammad Azam in favour of Rahim Bukhsh whereas the petitioner/defendant Muhammad Yasin (the other son of Muhammad Azam) laid claim on the basis of a gift executed by Muhammad Azam in his favour. The trial Court reached the conclusion that the suit plot had been gifted verbally by Muhammad Azam to Rahim Bukhsh and that gift deed (Exh.D.l) claimed by the petitioner/defendant was invalid. In appeal, the learned appellate Court reappraised and appreciated the evidence and proceeded to set aside the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. His conclusion was that both sons of Muhammad Azam had failed to prove respective gifts in their favour and summed up the matter by observing that "the property in question stands inherited in favour of the parties in accordance with their legal shares which is equal for both as Rahim Bukhsh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was a real brother of the present defendant/appellant". The learned counsel contends that the appellate Court had failed to consider the gift made and executed in favour of the petitioner by Muhammad Azam. It is not so, as the appellate Court has adequately dealt with this aspect of the matter that the petitioner/defendant had failed to prove the lawful execution of gift. There was no convincing evidence as to transfer of possession which was necessary for perfection of a valid gift. I am in agreement with the findings recorded and conclusion drawn by the learned appellate Court which is based on correct appreciation of the evidence and is consistent with law.
' In view of the above, I find no justification for interference by this Court with the judgment of the appellate Court. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.