' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---The petitioner impugns the concurrent findings recorded by the three courts below whereby suit filed by the respondent for declaration was decreed.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has not appreciated that the land in question was gifted to the petitioner by mutation gift on 5-6-1960, under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance, 1984, such entry has presumption of correctness.
3. We have taken into consideration arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record. From perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of oral agreement, mutation was effected. The respondent on having the knowledge of the same immediately filed suit for declaration and joint possession. The trial Court, after recording the evidence decreed the suit, which was maintained by the Appellate Court as well as by the Revisional Court, as the respondent is an illiterate and "Parda Nashin" lady.
4. Having considered the matter from all angles in the light of material on file, we find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. No misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record nor any infirmity legal or factual, has been pointed out in the impugned judgment. We are of the considered opinion that no different view can be taken in this matter with the concurrent findings of fact. The petitioner filed suit for declaration immediately on having knowledge of alleged mutation gift, and denied that she had gifted the property in question to the petitioner. The presumption under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in respect of a document thirty years old is in respect of the signature and every other part of the document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person which is not the case here. The mutation entry in the record is not in handwriting of the respondent and further it is not compulsory with the Court to presume the genuineness of the documents and may require the party producing the document to prove its execution by producing some witnesses.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the listed petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.