' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- The legal representatives of Qureshi Mehr. Din, alias Allah Mehr, have through this civil revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C. Assailed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dated 31-7-2008 and 5-10-2009 respectively, vide which declaratory suit of Muhammad Shafi, plaintiff/respondent was decreed.
2. According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff had sued the defendants to the effect that he is owner-in-possession of the suit house fully described in the plaint and that they have no concern whatsoever with it.
3. The suit was, hotly contested by the defendants who filed written statement and the divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of twelve issues including relief.
4. The learned trial Judge on evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing pro and contra evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for in the plaint, whereagainst appeal of the defendants also proved abortive vide judgments and decrees mentioned above.
5. Still feeling not contented from the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendants have filed the instant revision petition.
6. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners was that both the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence brought on record and thus wrongly decided the additional issues framed in the case.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents argued that the defendants had failed to prove the power of attorney. With regard to the additional issues, he argued that both the Courts below have correctly and unanimously decided the same and thus it needs no interference.
8. I have carefully gone through the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Perusal of the record reveals that the additional issues Nos.1 and 2 have been decided by the trial Court keeping in view its findings under issues Nos.3 to 6 and 10. Issues Nos.5, 6 and 10 relate to general power of attorney on behalf of defendant No,1 in favour of defendant No,2 and agreement deed dated 8-10-1990. Issue No,4 also relates to Iqrarnama. These documents have been thoroughly discussed under issues Nos.3 to 6 and 10 by the trial Court keeping in view the evidence of the parties.
10. Additional issues Nos.1 and 2 pertains to Gift-deed No, 340 dated 10-4-1991 and Gift-deed No,583 dated 18-6-1991 and issue regarding specific performance. These two issues are related to issues Nos.3 to 6 and 10 therefore, discussion thereunder would also cover the additional two issues. In' my opinion, no error has been committed by both the Courts below. The gift deed has been discussed exhaustively. As far as the gift deed is concerned, it is not proved in accordance with law, because the necessary ingredients have not been complied with. In this context, I may refer to 2003 SCM R 41, wherein it has been held that delivery of possession was an essential ingredient for a valid gift. It has been further held in that judgment that if delivery of possession is lacking, the gift would be void ab initio.
11. As far as power of attorney is concerned, it is to be noted that the beneficiary thereof is required to prove the execution of the document. It has been held in 2004 M LD 875 that even a registered power of attorney is required to be proved when the execution is denied. In case when a marginal witness is not produced, the execution of power of attorney would not be proved. Similar principal has been laid down in PLD 2003 SC 125 by holding that the delivery of possession was an essential ingredient, in absence whereof the gift would be of no avail.
12. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below being based on correct legal footings need no interference.
13. Furthermore, the learned two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings based on facts which cannot be set at naught by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Unless it is proved through cogent and convincing evidence available on record that such findings are either perverse, erroneous or have resulted into miscarriage of justice in view of the dicta handed down in the cases of Abdur Rahman and another v. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 Supreme Court 291 and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2002 Supreme Court 293.
14. Consequently, I find no substance in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.