ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J. - This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.7.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the respondents challenging the validity of t;he judgment and decree dated 16.3.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court was accepted.
2. The respondents in the instant petition, instituted a suit for declaration against the petitioners pertaining to land measuring 35 kanals, 14 marlas on the ground that they are owners in possession of the disputed land and the petitioners in the garb of executing a power-of- attorney had got executed the mutation of gift and after some time also got recorded the entries Khasra Girdawari in their favour.
3. The suit was vehemently resisted by the petitioner by filing a detailed written statement wherein it was asserted that the gift mutation was validly executed in their favour with the consent of the respondents, therefore, the suit was filed with ulterior motive.
4. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as six issues, recorded the evidence of the respondents where as the petitioners could not led their- evidence and finally dismissed the suit.
5. The respondents being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Court after hearing the arguments of the parties, finally accepted the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, hence this civil revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Appellate Court seriously erred in law by not interpreting-the documentary evidence in accordance with law available on the file and finally reached to an erroneous conclusion. Next contended that the gift was validly made in favour of the petitioners and the burden was heavily lied upon the respondents to proof his contention but the respondents miserably failed to succeed therein. Also contended that the gift mutation was attested with the consent and free will of the respondents in presence of the witnesses, the possession delivered to the petitioners but the learned Appellate Court without taking into consideration this aspect of the case has drawn totally illegal conclusion.
7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.
9. It is the claim of the petitioners that the land in dispute was gifted to them by their real uncle by way of a gift, mutation No. 834, dated 8.8.1995. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred attested mutation, which was allegedly executed in "favour of the petitioners.
The afore-said gift mutation was perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties but it is nowhere mention that any offer of gift was made by the respondents to the petitioners, the same was accepted and finally the posseission was handed over to the petitioners. There are three Ingredients as given in the law are provided to complete the transaction of gift i.e, offer, acceptance and delivery of possession but the gift mutation No. 834, dated 8.8.1995 claimed to have been executed in favour of the petitioners, is totally silent about the afore-said ingredients.
When this proposition was confronted alongwith the aforesaid documentary evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not offer any explanation to this effect and rather stated, that those ingredients are not mentioned in the afore-said gift mutation.
10. Further, the respondents while appearing in the witness-box categorically stated that the gift mutation was got attested by the petitioners on the pretext to executed a power-of-attorney and the possession was forcibly taken from them by the petitioners. The petitioners, who were defendants in the suit, duly filed the written statement, participated in the proceedings but failed to lead or produced any evidence In support of their contention, meaning thereby the claim urged by the respondents had gone un-rebutted.. The matter not ends here, the petitioners not only failed to produce any evidence in support of their claim but also disappeared and finally proceeded against ex parte by the learned Trial Court.
12. Even otherwise, it is established and proved from the record that the documents i.e. Gift mutation No. 834 on the basis of which the petitioners claimed their title is silent about the ingredients of gift. The learned Appellate Court has rightly observed after careful perusal, appraisal and appreciation of the evidence available on the file, that the gift mutation claimed by the petitioners is result of fraud and misrepresentation and in fact no gift was made by the respondents in favour of the petitioners.
13. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity, mis-reading and nonreading of evidence with the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court.