' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25- 5-2006 and 29-3-2005 passed by the learned Courts below respectively, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed.
2. The respondent in the instant revision petition, instituted a suit against the present petitioner, for declaration to the effect that the gift deed, dated 3-9-1995 registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kasur be cancelled being forged, fabricated, based upon fraud and consequently having no legal effect upon the rights of the respondent. The suit was resisted vehemently by the petitioner. In the written statement, it was asserted by the petitioner that the gift deed was validly executed by Noor Muhammad son of Allah Din, deceased who was owner of agricultural land measuring 129 Kanals, 10 Marla situated in Mauza Green Kot Tehsil and District Kausar. Further asserted by the petitioner in the written statement that the said land was gifted to the petitioner out of love and affection and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is not proceedable. The learned trial Court, out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed as many as nine issues, recorded the evidence of both the parties and after hearing the arguments, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, preferred an appeal but the same was too dismissed by the appellate Court, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below while decreeing the suit are totally contrary to law and facts of the case. Next contended that the petitioner fully proved the gift deed executed in his favour by deceased Noor Muhammad and the learned Courts below misdirected themselves, misinterpreted the evidence as well as the record available on the file. Next contended that the gift deed was executed in the presence of the witnesses and also registered with the Sub-Registrar so the cancellation of the said document by the learned trial Court but without referring any evidence is not sustainable in law. It was also contended by the petitioner that the issue wise findings recorded by the learned Courts below are totally contrary to the evidence available on the file, thus the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and such type of the findings though concurrent cannot be sustained in law. Lastly contended that the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the petitioner supported the version of the petitioner and the factum of the gift deed but the learned Courts below totally mis-interpreted and wrongly appreciated the statement recorded by the said witness.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent supported the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. Further contended that the petitioner miserably failed to prove the gift deed by adducing two marginal witnesses so such type of the evidence to prove a document is not supported by any law. Also contended that it is requirement of law and also well settled principle that a registered document can only be proved by adducing at least two marginal witnesses whereas in this case only one marginal witness appeared so the learned Courts below have rightly concluded that the said gift deed is result of fraud and misrepresentation and has not been executed by deceased Noor Muhammad. The learned counsel also supported the issue-wise findings recorded by the learned Courts below and also submitted that the petitioner also tried to deprive the widow of Noor Muhammad, deceased from her inheritance by way of this instrument which is not only against the law of land but also the principle of Muhammadan Law. The learned counsel specifically asserted the statement of Rehmatay Bibi widow of deceased Noor Muhammad who appeared in the witness box and stated that the gift deed was not executed by the deceased Noor Muhammad. The learned counsel while concluding his argument relied upon City Education Board (Registered), Sialkot through Director v. Mst. Maqbool Nasreen (PLD 2008 Lahore 51), Abdul Hameed through L.Rs, and others v. Shamasuddin and others (PLD 2008 SC 140), Mst. Sakina Bibi and another v. Muhammad Anwar alias Mujahid (PLD 2007 Lahore 254), Muhammad Boota v. Mst. Rashidan Bibi and others (2008 SCMR 343), Rana Abdul Rasheed v. Iqbal Hussain (2008 CLC 1) and Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Kallu and others (2008 SCMR 452).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. Admittedly, both the parties are legal heirs of deceased Noor Muhammad who admittedly died in advance age, left the agricultural land mentioned in the head note of the plaint. The respondent in this case has questioned the validity of gift deed, dated 3-9-1995 executed by deceased Noor Muhammad. And to prove the said document the petitioner adduced scribe and one marginal witness as D.W.3 and D.W.4 along with others, whereas on the other side the respondent adduced P.W.1 to P.W.S. The most important material witness appeared on behalf of the respondent is Rehmatay Bibi (P.W.1) who is widow of deceased Noor Muhammad and being life partner of the donor was well conversant with the affairs of the deceased. The said Rehamatay Bibi while appearing in the witness box stated that at the time of death of her husband (Noor Muhammad), he was of 100 years of age and was not a person of sound mind. She also stated that he was unable to walk and never gifted the suit property in favour of the petitioner. The other witnesses appeared on behalf of the respondent also supported the fact of mental ailment and general health of the donor whereas the Halqa Patwari stated that the possession of the suit property was partially with the respondent herein. On the other hand, the evidence produced by the A petitioner is not confidence-inspiring and particularly only one marginal witness who is also father of Safdar Ali appeared but could not prove the execution of the gift deed allegedly executed by deceased Noor Muhammad. Because of the death of other marginal witness, his son appeared as D.W.1. And did not state any material thing in support of the version of the petitioner. It is requirement of the law that to prove the execution of a document, at least two witnesses are required whereas in this case, the petitioner has failed to fulfil this requirement of law. Reliance is placed on City Education Board (Registered), Sialkot through Director v. Mst. Maqbool Nasreen (PLD 2008 Lahore 51), Abdul Hameed through L.Rs, and others v. Shamasuddin and others (PLD 2008 SC 140), Mst. Sakina Bibi and another v. Muhammad Anwar alias Mujahid (PLD 2007 Lahore 254). It is concurrently recorded after appreciating the evidence available on the file by the learned Courts below that the deceased Noor Muhammad was more than eighty years of age at the time of his death and further was not a man of sound mind so the claim of the petitioner to execute the gift deed and delivery of possession of the property in question becomes doubtful. Even otherwise, the evidence produced by the petitioner did not specify as required by law or indicate the delivery of possession of the land in question. For this purpose, the statement of the Patwari can be referred who stated in the witness box that partial possession of the land in question was with the respondent in the instant petition. This proposition has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Boota v. Mst. Rashidan Bibi and others (2008 SCMR 343). Both the learned Courts below and especially the learned Ist appellate Court appreciated and addressed each and every document and oral evidence produced by the parties and came to the conclusion that the gift deed is result of fraud and misrepresentation. The concurrent findings as regards to the execution of a gift deed by the petitioner with the intention to deprive the other legal heirs from their inheritance are not liable to be interfered in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C.
(Rana Abdul Rasheed v. Iqbal Hussain 2008 CLC 1). Even otherwise it has already been settled in plethora of judgments that the findings of facts by learned two Courts below after appreciating the evidence available on the file cannot be interfered in the absence of non-reading and misreading of material evidence by the learned Courts below and it has also been disapproved to reappraise the evidence at the revisional stage, (Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Kallu and others (2008 SCMR 452). The learned counsel for the petitioner has otherwise failed to point out or refer any misreading or non-reading of evidence, material irregularity or irregularity and jurisdictional defect with the concurrent conclusion drawn by the learned Courts below thus there is hardly any reason or scope to interfere with those findings.
7. Resultantly this petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.