' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.--- This Civil Revision is directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the two courts below whereby a suit instituted by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits of the subject property was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 5-6-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat, and an appeal preferred by the present petitioners against the said judgment and decree dated 5-6-2010 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Gujrat vide judgment and decree dated 13- 11-2010.
2. A residential house bearing Property No.B-9/585 situated in Mohallah Rangpura Tibba Shah Hussain Road Gujrat city measuring 4 marlas comprising two rooms, one Baithik, kitchen and courtyard and is bounded and described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint dated 27-11-2007. This house was owned by late Iftikhar Ahmad who was predecessor-ininterest of the respondents Nos.1 to 4. The respondent No.1 being the widow of the deceased Iftikhar Ahmad whereas the respondents Nos.2 and 3 being sons of Iftikhar Ahmad and respondent No.4 being the daughter of Iftikhar Ahmad instituted the suit with the contentions that the suit house was originally owned by late Muhammad Shafi the paternal grandfather of the parties and during his life time vide registered gift-deed dated 21-2-1975 he gifted away the same to his three sons 1'. Iftikhar Ahmad (predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs),
2. Muhammad Shafqat and one Muhammad Asghar.
According to the gift-deed transaction the constructed portion of the house i,e, two rooms, Baithak and kitchen with exit approach were alienated to late Iftikhar Ahmad whereas the open space was given to the other two sons by the said Muhammad Shafi. The possession of the subject property.
Was also respectively delivered to the donees. The present petitioners being in possession of the constructed portion denied the possession to the plaintiffs and consequently the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 4 with the prayer for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits @ Rs,2,000/-per month since April, 2004.
3. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit by submitting a written statement in which the only plea taken by the present petitioners/defendants was a bald denial of the contentions raised in the plaint. The petitioners/defendants simply contended that the plaintiffs do not have any connection with the subject property and after raising some other legal and factual objections the suit was prayed for to be dismissed.
4. The learned Civil Judge framed the following issues out of the pleadings of the parties:--- ISSUES
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?
OPD
(3) Whether the suit is barred by limitations, is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(4) Whether the suit has been filed with mala fide intention and the same is liable to be dismissed and defendant No.2 is entitled to recover special cost from the plaintiffs under section 35-A of C. P . C. ? OPD
(5) Whether property in question was gifted to Iftikhar Ahmed (predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs), Muhammad Shafqat (father of defendants) and Muhammad Asghar vide registered document No.532 dated 21-2-1975 by Muhammad Shafi? OPP
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for? OPP
(7) Relief.
5. The parties produced their respective evidence and the learned Civil Judge recorded the crucial findings on the Issues Nos.5 and 6 and came to the conclusions that the constructed portion of the disputed house comprising two rooms, drawing room, kitchen and passage was gifted to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs whereas the open space courtyard was gifted to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and his brother Muhammad Asghar therefore the plaintiffs were held entitled to recover possession of the constructed portion which is being occupied by the present petitioners as well as the respondent No.5 who has been impleaded in this Civil Revision as pro forma respondent as he is stated to be abroad and could not join the petitioners in the Civil Revision. The learned Civil Judge declined the relief of mesne profits to the respondents Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs thus the suit was partly decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 5-6-2010.
6. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-6-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Gujrat which appeal came up for hearing before a learned Additional.
District Judge Gujrat who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 13-11-2010. Hence this Civil Revision.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the gift-deed dated 21-2-1975 claimed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs of the suit was a fraudulent deed and that the petitioners derived their title to the subject property on the basis of a copy of entries in a Register Form PT-1 Exh.D1 for the years 2002 to 2009-10 which reflected the name of Ghulam Fatima widow of Muhammad Shafi as the owner of the subject property therefore it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the gift-deed had not created any rights in favour of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 as the original owner to whom this gift-deed is attributed was not the owner of the subject house therefore no title passed further on the basis of said gift-deed Exh.P1. The learned counsel for the petitioners thus contended that two courts below have illegally decreed the suit in favour of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 and the same be set aside.
8. The learned counsel representing the respondents 1 to 4 has contended that the concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the two courts below which are in accordance with the evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the document PT-1 is not at all a title deed and it carries no weight in the eye of law and further that it pertains to the years 2002 to 2009-10 whereas the subject property already stood transferred to the donees in the year 1975 through the document Exh.P1 by the actual owner Muhammad Shafi. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the gift-deed was not at all assailed for the last so many years and is a 30 years old document and its legal authenticity is beyond any doubt. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 4 that no plea with respect to the document Exh.P1/gift-deed that it was a fraudulent document and that Ghulam Fatima the wife of Muhammad Shaft was the owner of the house in question was taken in the pleadings by the petitioners Nos.1 to 4 and therefore no evidence can be led on the basis of facts which are not pleaded by a litigant before the civil court. The learned counsel for the respondents after relying upon the judgments reported as MUZAFFAR KHAN v. SANCHI KHAN AND ANOTHER (2007 SCM R 181) and 2007 SCMR 568) prayed for the dismissal of the Civil Revision.
9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The learned Civil Judge while recording his findings on Issues Nos.6 and 7 in paragraph No.9 of his judgment dated 5-6-2010 has observed as follows:--- "The first question to be determined in the present issues is that who the real owner of the disputed house was. In this regard the plaintiffs have produced attested copy of the Gift-deed No.532 dated 21-2-1975 (Exh.P1) while the defendants have placed on the record attested copy of P. T. 1 form as Ex.D1 to establish that the disputed house was owned by late Ghulam Fatima. The said P. T.1 form is pertaining to 2002 to 2009 in which the name of Ghulam Fatima is present as owner. Perusal of Exh. P1 reveals that Muhammad Shafi through registered gift-deed alienated constructed area of a house to Iftikhar Ahmed predecessor of the plaintiffs while gifted out the courtyard to his two sons namely Muhammad Asghar and the predecessor of the defendants namely Muhammad Shafqat. Exh. P1 is thirty years old document and presumption of truth is attached with the same. I am of the view that P. T.1 form is not a proof of ownership but it is a document prepared by the Excise and Taxation Department to recover taxes from the occupant.
The registered document has precedence over the other documents regarding the ownership of immovable property. It is also in the evidence of the defendants that late Ghulam Fatima died in the year 1973 so I am of the view that her name could not be incorporated at serial No.4 of P. T.1 form for the year 2002 to 2010. The defendants have also not produced P. T.1 form for the. Year 2002 to 2010. The defendants have also not produced P. T.1 form regarding the disputed property prior to the date of alleged gift made by Muhammad Shaft or any other document regarding the ownership of the disputed house and other properties allegedly owned by late Ghulam Fatima. So in such circumstances and from the material available on the record it can be safely concluded that the disputed house was previously owned by the late Muhammad Shaft."
' The learned Civil Judge also held the gift-deed Exh.P1 to be a validly executed registered gift-deed being thirty years old document carrying presumption of truth in its favour under the law and thus concluded that the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 4 validly claimed the possession from the defendants of the suit on the basis of the said gift-deed Ex.P1. The observations of the learned Civil Judge in paragraph No.10 are also relevant and are reproduced below:--- "The next question to be determined in the present issue is that whether Muhammad Shaft gifted the disputed house to Iftikhar Ahmed, (predecessor of the plaintiffs), Muhammad Shafqat (predecessor of the defendants) and Muhammad Asghar? Exh. P1 is registered gift-deed dated 21- 2-1975 which has not been challenged by the legal heirs of late Muhammad Shaft. The said document is thirty years old and nothing has been placed on the record by the defendants to rebut the same while Exh.D1 is not a title document. Exh.P1 being thirty years old document has presumption of truth therefore, it can be safely concluded that the late Muhammad Shaft made registered gift-deed in favour of his three sons while gifted the constructed area to the predecessor of the plaintiffs and courtyard to the predecessor of the defendants and one Muhammad Asghar. I am also of the view that no physical departure or formal entry is necessary in case of gift of immovable property in which the donner and the donee are both residing at the time of gift. In such a case the gift may be completed by some overt act by the donner indicating a clear intention on his part to transfer possession and to divest himself of control over the subject of the gift. Admittedly, the donor was the father of the donee therefore, it can be safely concluded that they all were residing in the disputed house at the time of execution of gift-deed and there was no need for physical departure and formal entry by the donee."
11. The learned appellate court after relying upon the case cited before him confirmed the findings of the learned Civil Judge and the following observations are relevant from the judgment dated 13- 11-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge which are eproduced below:-- "The evidence on file has proved that Muhammad Shafi being the owner gifted his property as constructed portion to Iftikhar Ahmad his son predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs, and courtyard to Muhammad Shafqat predecessor in interest of defendants along with Muhammad Asghar and the said gift was . Complete in all aspects. The possession of property later on was given for temporary use and for looking after purposes by Iftikhar Ahmad to his brother Muhammad Shafqat since Iftikhar Ahmad had shifted his family to Karachi and after the death of Iftikhar Ahmad his legal heirs became the owner of said property immediately, and when their title has been disputed by defendants cause of action did arise in their favour in the year 2004 for the first time and when their request with regard to vacating the premises by defendants finally then they had got every right to bring the suit in the year 2007. So, in the said state of affairs this Court find that the learned Trial Court while deciding Issues Nos. I to 6 has properly appreciated the evidence and present Court do not find any non-reading and misreading of evidence. The suit was very much within time and there was no requirement for affixation of court fee as the plaintiff did not bring their suit on the basis of gift but on the basis of being legal heirs of Iftikhar Ahmad in favour of whom Muhammad Shafi had executed gift-deed with regard to constructed portion along with passage in the disputed house. In the present state of affairs this Court find that the impugned judgment has been passed quite in accordance with law and facts. This Court do not, find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court. So, in these circumstances the appeal in hand merits dismissal which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Record' of the learned Trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back whereas file of appeal be consigned to the record room after its due compilation."
12. The two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts in accordance with the evidence as well as in accordance with law. The gift-deed Exh.P1 dated 21-2-1975 is a thirty years old document and has not been assailed by the petitioners/defendants during the last more than thirty years. The claim raised by the petitioners in respect of the house in question with respect to the entries of register of PT-1 Exh.D1 in favour of Ghulam Fatima wife of Muhammad Shafi cannot be described as a title deed nor it is an authentic document as well. The perusal of document Exh.D1 points out that it pertains to the year 2002 to 2009-,] ' 2010. Its entries are only relevant for the purpose of tax recovery and unless and until such an entry is based upon some title deed in favour of Mst. Ghulam Fatima in whose name the entries in the register PT-1 are incorporated, it cannot be lawfully argued that such a person can be declared to be the owner of the subject property on the basis of simple entries in the register PT-1. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported as MUZAFFAR KHAN v. SANCHI KHAN AND ANOTHER (2007 SCM R 181) has laid down the law that mere entries in the property tax assessm ent register/PT-1 do not constitute the proof of title in respect of an immoveable property.
The same law is laid down in the following reported judgments: SHEIKH MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. VIRBAI THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS (1993 CLC 1702) RAJA AJAIB KHAN v. SOOFI ALLAH DITTA AND 4 OTHERS (2002 YLR 2723)
13. The present petitioners as well as the respondent No.5 did not raise any plea with respect to the gift-deed being illegal, fraudulent or unauthorised in their written statement therefore the oral contention in the evidence produced by the petitioners about the legality or otherwise of the document Exh.P1 carries no legal force. Even Mst. Ghulam Fatima neither filed any suit nor raised the claim in her favour of the subject property.
14. The two courts below have decided the matter in accordance with law on the basis of evidence.
The suit instituted by the respondents No.1 to 4 was based upon bona fides and the present petitioners as well as the respondent No.5 have entangled the respondents Nos.1 to 4 in the frivolous litigation by depriving them of the benefit of the possession over the subject property for so many years therefore while dismissing this Civil Revision I award the costs to the respondents Nos.1 to 4 against the present petitioners as well as the respondent No.5 throughout. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout.