' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.----The petitioner-defendant has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 12-6-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff was accepted, the judgment and decree, dated 17-12-2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore was set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration was decreed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief alleging therein that she had purchased land measuring 6 Marlas through registered sale- deed, dated 11-5-1983 and the same was duly incorporated in the revenue record through Mutation No,9263, dated 13-6-1983. The she raised a house over the said plot after selling her jewelry and also getting monetary help from her elder sister, brother and mother. According to the respondent- plaintiff, the petitioner-defendant being her husband got her signatures/ thump impressions over some blank stamp paper for getting a power of attorney from her for repayment of loan, but later on it came to her knowledge that the petitioner had prepared a gift deed, dated 2-7-1994 in his favour and the same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Model Town, Lahore. By filing the suit in hand, the respondent had prayed for declaring her to be absolute owner of the house in question and that the said gift deed as well as consequent Mutation No,20855, dated 31-5-1994 be declared illegal, based on fraud and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff-respondent.
3. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement alleging therein that the suit plot had been purchased by him from his own sources and that the construction was also raised by him. According to the petitioner, the relations between them had become strained and upon reconciliation proceedings, a gift deed of the suit plot was executed in his favour on the instructions of the respondent-plaintiff.
4. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the defendant and the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(2) Whether the plaint is not properly valued and is not affixed the proper court-fee upon the suit?
OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is to be rejected under Order VII rule 11 of C.P.C.? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is false, bogus, vexatious and therefore, the defendant is entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for in the suit? OPP.
(6) Relief.
5. Both the parties brought oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective versions. The learned trial Court after hearing the evidence of the parties had dismissed the suit, but the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 12-6-2007, which has been assailed through the instant Civil Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the impugned judgment is based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence on the record; that the learned appellant Court had failed to appreciate that the respondent-plaintiff being a house wife had no monetary means to purchase the property gifted by her through gift deed, dated 21-4-1994; that as a matter fact it was property of the plaintiff-defendant, which was rightly transferred in his favour by the respondent through gift deed and the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit filed by, the respondent after appraisal of evidence on the record; that the physical delivery of possession was not necessary as the parties being spouses had been living in the same house and the respondent admitted her signatures and thumb impressions on the gift deed, which was duly incorporated in the revenue record and the admitted facts need not to be proved, but the learned appellate Court fell in error while taking a contrary view and decreeing the suit through the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has supported the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the fraud had been played with the respondent, which was duly proved and the learned appellate Court has given valid reasons in support of the impugned judgment and decree, which is liable to be maintained.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the Court Courts below as well as the evidence of the parties attached with the file. The respondent produced Muhammad Asif P.W.1., Muhammad Idrees P.W.2., Shah Jehan P.W.3. And she herself appeared as P.W.4. Receipts for sale of gold, receipts issued by the Lahore Cantonment, electricity bill and suit gas bill were brought on file as Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-11. On the other hand the petitioner- defendant appeared as P.W.3 and produced Muhammad Sarfraz D.W.1. And Muhammad Arshad D.W.2. He also produced documents Exh.D-1 to Exh. D-13 .
9. It is admitted position that the suit plot was originally purchased in the name of the respondent- plaintiff and the petitioner-defendant never brought any suit against her regarding Benami transaction. Moreover, the respondent-plaintiff is in possession of the house in question since its construction. The petitioner-defendant has failed to prove his claim through any solid evidence that a gift of property in question was made by the respondent in favour of the petitioner during reconciliation proceedings when the relations between the parties were strained. The petitioner has not produced any witness in whose favour the respondent had gifted the property to him. The learned appellate Court has given valid reasons in support of the impugned judgment and rightly reversed the findings of the learned trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or non- reading of evidence on the part of the learned appellate Court, which has rightly held that "The respondent was the beneficiary of impugned gift deed Exh.D-3, but has failed to prove its valid execution. The respondent has not examined any witness in whose presence the appellant had allegedly made the gift of house in question in his favour. There was no marginal witness of gift deed Exh.D-3. In a nutshell, the respondent being beneficiary of impugned gift deed has miserably failed to prove essential ingredients of a valid gift." The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to controvert the findings of the learned appellate Court from the evidence on record, which are maintained. Hence this revision petition having no merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.