ORDER RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J. Preliminary arguments have been heard and record has minutely been perused.
2. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 31-5-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh, whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26-1-2009 passed by Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Cheema, Civil Judge 1st Class, Shakargarh was dismissed.
3. The respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief against the petitioner and Muhammad Siddique deceased, now represented by Mst. Hajran Bibi, his widow, to the effect that she is owner in possession of land measuring 23 kanals and 9 marlas, fully described in the head-note of the plaint and Mutation No.169 dated 31-5-2003 got attested by the petitioner/defendant No.1 on the basis of alleged oral sale is illegal, void and ineffective qua her rights. As consequential relief, it was prayed that defendant No.1/petitioner be restrained from interfering in her possession over the property or transferring it to someone else. It. Was stated that the disputed land along with other land owned by defendant/ respondent No.2 was transferred to her through registered gift deed dated 3-12-1992 and the possession was delivered to her but the revenue officials did not incorporate the gift deed in the record in respect of the disputed land whereas it was incorporated in respect of land measuring 26 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Bairy Kalan. It was alleged that defendant No.1/petitioner by prevailing over defendant/respondent No.2 and in connivance with the revenue officials got the impugned mutation attested on the basis of oral sale in respect of the disputed land, which had already been transferred to her through registered gift deed so the said mutation is void and ineffective.
4. The petitioner and defendant No.1 contended that the registered gift deed was executed by defendant No.2 only in respect of the land situated in village Bairy Kalan and that the disputed land was never transferred through the said gift deed and the respondent No.1, who is a clever woman got it incorporated illegally in the gift deed.
5. The deceased Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Ali petitioner also filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the disputed land was never transferred through gift deed executed by Muhammad Siddique and, in fact, he had transferred it to the petitioner vide Mutation No.169 dated 31-5-2003 and that the respondent No.1 being sole issue had taken undue advantage and without his knowledge got the disputed land entered in the gift deed in connivance with the witnesses and the officials of the Registrar office and as such the gift deed to the extent of disputed land was illegal and void. Subsequently Muhammad Siddique withdrew this suit by contending that he had not filed it and Muhammad Ali petitioner filed the amended plaint with the same contentions. Both these suits were consolidated.
6. After framing the consolidated issues and recording the evidence the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 26-1-2009 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1. This judgment and decree was assailed by the petitioner before the learned ADJ, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the alleged gift in respect of the disputed land was never made and, in fact, the respondent No.1 in whose favour the gift deed was executed by her father to the extent of land measuring 26 kanals 3 marlas of village Bairy Kalan, got the disputed land also entered in the gift deed through fraud and in connivance with the officials of the Registrar office. It is urged that neither the offer was made in respect of the disputed land by Muhammad Siddique deceased nor the same was accepted by respondent No.1. It is contended that the possession was also never transferred to respondent No.1 so no gift was made in accordance with law.
8. The execution of the disputed gift deed is admitted but it is contended that it was in respect of land measuring 26 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Bairy Kalan only and did not pertain to the disputed land. The copy of the gift deed (Exh.P.1) reveals that this gift deed was in respect of land measuring 49 kanals 12 marlas, which includes the disputed land also. The endorsement given by the Sub-Registrar on the back of the gift deed shows that he had read over its contents word by word to Muhammad Siddique, who after admitting the same as correct, had put his signatures on the same in presence of witnesses. A presumption of correctness is attached to this endorsement because it was recorded in performance of the official duties and bears the signatures of the donor, Muhammad Qurban on behalf of the donee/respondent and the witnesses. In this respect reliance is placed on the law laid down in the case of Pirla and others v. Noora and others (PLD 1976 Lahore 6). The oral evidence regarding contents of this document, the execution of which is admitted, without be excluded and cannot be given any weight in view of the provisions of Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
9. Muhammad Siddique Sargala, Advocate (P.W.2.) and Ghulam Rasool (P.W.3.) have categorically stated that the gift deed (Exh.P.1) was signed by them as witnesses and that the donor had transferred the land situated in both the villages through this deed. Muhammad Siddique defendant No.2 as P.W.4. Had categorically stated that he had' transferred the disputed land along with the land of village Bairy Kalan to respondent No.1 and he had put his thumb impression on the gift deed. He stated that he had not transferred the disputed land to anyone else. The defendant/petitioner, who appeared as DW-1 had admitted that the disputed land was managed by respondent No.1 so his contention that the possession was not delivered to her is false. The contention that the gift was made only to the extent of the land situated in village Bairy Kalan cannot be accepted in view of unambiguous contents of the gift deed, the execution whereof is admitted by the donor and I is duly proved by the P.Ws. This land stood transferred to respondent No.1 on 3-12-1992 and the subsequent mutation purportedly made by Muhammad Siddique is of no legal consequence as he was not owner of the property at that time. Both the learned courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and have arrived at just conclusions. These well reasoned concurrent findings on questions of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision J petition is without merits and the same is dismissed in limine.