' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The instant petition as also C.R. No,12-D of 1992/BWP, are being disposed of together, as both involve common questions of law and facts and the fate of C.R. No,12-D of 1992/BWP, is dependent upon the decision of the noted petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land measuring 312440 Acres was the "Shakargah" owned by the State of Bahawalpur; out of the above, it is allegedly claimed by the petitioners that Nawab of Bahawalpur, vide instrument dated 5-5-1985, (Exh.P-1), gifted 41959 Beghas and 3 Kanals of land in favour of one Channi Muhammad Khan; the possession is also clained to have been delivered to the donee by the order of his Highness Nawab of Bahawalpur vide documents Exh.P-2 dated 5-5- 1885, Khasra Pamaish (Exh P-3) , envisages the description of the property; Yadashat of the delivery of possession dated 2-4-1886 is Exh. P-4; the acknowledgement of the possession by the donee dated 29-9-1886 is Exh.P-6, thus on the basis of the above, it is asserted by the plaintiffs that the gift in favour of Channi Muhammad Khan, was plaintiffs that the gift in favour of Channi Muhammad Khan, was complete; however, due to lack of the revenue record in Bahawalpur State, the transaction obviously does not find mention in any other public/official record. Channi Muhammad Khan has died since long (exact date and year of his death is not given), but when questioned, the counsel for the petitioners stated it to be in 19th Century; however, the plaintiffs assert that Mr. Channi was survived by Jan Muhammad, his paternal cousin, and on his death, the aforesaid property devolved upon Muhammad Sharif, his son. Muhammad Sharif through various agreement of sales, sold that aforesaid land in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners Nos.1 to 67 and 69; they brought suits for the specific performance against Muhammad Sharif, which were decreed on 2-5-1974 (Exh.P-22), 14-5-1974 (Exh. P-23), 23-5-1974 (Exh. P-24), 18-7-1974 (Exh.P-25) and 2-9- 1974 (Exh.P-26).
' However, when asked in the Court, the learned counsel concedes that the decrees were not got executed through the process of the Court.
3. Anyhow, the aforesaid land along with the other part of the "Shakargah" was resumed under MLR 1964 on 6-5-1968 and considering it to be the part of the Bahawalpur State, it was allotted in favour of Respondents Nos.8 to 22 on 18-2-1982 as landless cultivators from some other area. Without prejudice to any one's case, I may refer, on the information provided by the counsel for the parties, that such resumption was challenged by the L.Rs, of his Highness and has been annulled at the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Be that as it may, the petitioners, avowing to be the owners of the property on account of having purchased the same from Muhammad Sharif brought the suit for the declaration on 14-2-1975, impleading the Province of Punjab (Respondent No,1), the rival claimants, who are the legal heirs of Channi Muhammad Khan (Respondents Nos.2 to 17); the allottees under the Land Reforms (Respondents Nos.18 to 22); the Cholishtan Development Authority (Respondent No,23) and The Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (Respondent No,24); the written statements were filed by all the respondents/defendants and it was controverted that any gift was validly made in favour of Channi Muhammad Khan. It may be pertinent to mention here that Respondents Nos.2 to 17, also brought a suit for the declaration alleging that they also are the legal heirs of Channi Muhammad Khan and thus have inherited the suit property, and that Muhammad Sharif could not have solely sold the same to the plaintiffs; both the suits were consolidated; issues were framed accordingly; parties were put to trial and as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Issues Nos.7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are the important issues, upon which the learned Civil Judge, returned its findings against the petitioners and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree B dated 23-74984; the appeal of the petitioners has also failed on 30-9-1991. Hence these petitions.
4. It is argued by Mr. Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, learned counsel for the petitioners that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on the record; the finding of the two Courts that there is an interpolation in Exh. P-7, is totally misconceived and is not based upon proper reading of the document. It is also stated that the view set out by the learned ADJ that the exact description of the gifted property cannot be ascertained, is also incorrect; rather it is so proved on the basis of Exh.P- 3, as to which specific property was gifted; moreover, the findings that the possession, which was necessary for the purpose of the validity of the gift, is not shown to have been delivered to the donee, are absolutely wrong, as the delivery of possession is established from Exh.P-2, the order of his Highness dated 5-5-1885; Yadashat of delivery of possession Exh.P-4 dated, 2-4-1886 and acknowledgement of possession Exh. P-6 by the donee dated 29-9-1886, therefore, the gift for all intents and purpose was complete and valid. The learned counsel also argued that the suit land could never be resumed under the MLR, as being the property of the Bahawalpur State or that of his Highness and allotted to Respondents No,18 to 22; he further states that both the Courts below have misconstrued Exh.P-7/Exh.D-4 to hold that the document has been interpolated, whereas, from the original, it is very clear that the word " {{URDU TEXT}}" has been used instead of " c4 I "; this view is fortified by Exh.D.130, which was meant for the implementation of the gift and in this document, it stands. Clearly mentioned that the condition was waived as the word mentioned is "{{URDU TEXT}} Learned counsel has further explained that the view of the Courts that the property is not identifiable is falsified by Exh.P-3, which establishes that the identification was made from Chak Suleh Wala taking it to be a Centre; he also submits that his Highness, during his life time, has never exercised the condition, cancelling the gift, even if it is assumed to be there, by making any revocation of the gift and therefore Channi Muhammad Khan has become the absolute owner of the property, which had devolved upon his legal heir from whom the petitioners have purchased the same; it is lastly submitted that even the authority of his Highness to revoke the gift was circumvented by the condition laid down in the Exh.P-1, and that is "{{URDU TEXT}} or non payment of " {{URDU TEXT}}" and it is not the case of the respondents that any such condition was violated by Channi Muhammad Khan and therefore, the gift stood revoked.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the document Exh.P-1, it is clear that the land was not given to Channi Muhammad Khan in the nature of a gift as permissible under the Muhammadan Law, but it was a gift with a condition of being " {{URDU TEXT}}such in fact was not an absolute gift, but in the nature of exclusively a usufruct to Channi Muhammad Khan, for the purpose of his services rendered to the late Nawab; he in no manner on the basis of Exh.P-1 has ever become the exclusive owner of the property, which could devolve upon any of his legal heirs, the two Courts have rightly construed Exh.P-1 and my own reading of the document also shows that the condition of {{URDU TEXT}} was never waived by Nawab at any point of time; the original record has been perused, which fortifies the above view. The argument that the exercise of the condition was never made by late Nawab, because there is no instrument of revocation. The submission falsifies on the reasons firstly as mentioned above, " {{URDU TEXT}}" or " {{URDU TEXT}} " to Channi Muhammad Khan, in my view was only for his life time and the moment he had died, the property could not devolve upon any of his legal heirs, therefore, in such circumstances, no express revocation was needed; the other reason that the property had been resumed under the land reforms, proves that no gift existed at that time and any other legal heir of Channi had not challenged the resumption through the mechanism provided by the law before the forum having exclusive jurisdiction in this behalf.
As regards the argument that the petitioners have procured the decrees for the specific performance against Muhammad Sharif, sole heir of Channi Muhammad Khan, it may be mentioned that the decrees for the specific performance by itself do not mean the transfer of any right in the property on account of which, the petitioners could seek the declaration of the ownership of the property, until and unless D the decrees were got executed. It is admitted position and even conceded by the petitioners' cotinsel that such decrees have never been got executed by the petitioners till to-date. In support of the above, reliance in this behalf has been placed on Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Siddiqui (PLD 1975 Lahore 909), therefore, I do not find any illegality or error in the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below calling for interference in my revisional jurisdiction; these petitions thus have no merits and the same are hereby dismissed.