' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.--- Impugned herein is the judgment and decree dated 7-6-2011 of learned Additional District Judge-V, Kohat vide which the appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 21-7-2011 of learned Civil Judge-XI, Kohat was maintained.
2. Facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for decree of possession and permanent injunction, in terms, that they are entitled to inherit from 1/10th share in the legacy of deceased Karim Khan son of Syed Ali and petitioner is entitled to inherit from remaining 1/10th hence the entire property gifted by deceased Karim Khan through Mutation No,1856 attested on 28-8-1970 in favour of petitioner was the result of fraud, therefore, the same is illegal and ineffective upon their rights on the ground that mutation was attested just to deprive them from their legal share in the property in dispute. Defendants were put on notice. Petitioner/defendant No,1 through her attorney filed written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and pro and contra evidence was recorded. It is, however, to be mentioned that during pendency of the suit the petitioner preferred an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., which was resisted by respondents by filing replication thereto and subsequently the same was accepted by learned trial court vide order dated 17-2-2006. Dissatisfied with the said order, the respondents preferred appeal and the learned Additional District Judge-V, Kohat vide judgment and decree dated 30-6-2007 allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision on merit.
Not contended with the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.No,1330 of 2007 before this court, which was disposed of on 12-4-2010 with certain observations to the learned trial court. Subsequently, the learned trial court decreed the suit of respondents and appeal filed thereagainst has been dismissed by learned appellate court, hence the revision petition in hand.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the findings of learned courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record; that the right of petitioner was , Settled through settlement proceedings carried out in the area of Kohat in 1972/73 on the basis of gift deed executed in her favour, but no one objected to its entry in the Revenue Record but this aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the learned courts below; that the learned appellate court did not consider the application, affidavit and statements of respondents 2 and 8 vide which they surrendered their share in favour of petitioner and voluntarily withdrew from litigation, which escaped the attention of learned appellate court; that application preferred by petitioner for producing additional evidence has been left undecided by learned appellate court and in a hasty manner disposed of the appeal; that essential conditions for a gift were fulfilled but this aspect of the matter was neither taken into account nor any issue was framed about the validity of the gift causing miscarriage of justice; that the suit of respondents was barred by time as they filed the suit in the year, 2001 while the impugned mutation was attested in the year, 1970, hence the evidence recorded and conclusion drawn merits reversal, the learned counsel was of the view.
' Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly, the parties are legal heirs of deceased Karim Khan, who was owner of the disputed property. The claim of respondents/ plaintiffs is that they as well as petitioner were entitled to their shari share in the property in question. It was alleged by respondents that the gift Mutation No,1856 attested on 28-8-1970 in favour of petitioner was based on fraud and misrepresentation as they/respondents were also legal heirs of the said deceased. On the other hand, the contention of petitioner is that the disputed property was gifted by her father/predecessor of the parties in her favour through the said mutation, which was proved through overwhelming and confidence- inspiring evidence. It was further claimed that the petitioner has raised construction after expending huge amount of money and is in possession of the suit property right from attestation of mutation.
5. The record reveals that Abdul Qayum and Munawar Khan were stated to be marginal witnesses of impugned mutation but none of them were produced by petitioner before the court to substantiate her claim. It is further noticed that Girdawar Circle as well as the petitioner herself did not appear before the court to depose regarding the execution of mutation in favour of petitioner.
As far as attestation of mutation in favour of petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that mutation does not create or destroy title but it is maintained only for keeping the record right. The other plea of possession by the petitioner in absence of any supporting evidence was rightly not believed by the courts below. The essential ingredients of gift were not fulfilled as was held by learned courts below. The evidence produced by petitioner is cryptic and not confidence-inspiring. On the contrary, the oral and documentary evidence produced by respondents was relied upon culminating a decree in their favour. The question of limitation was also rightly dealt with by learned courts below in a reasonable and fair manner.
6. The learned counsel tried to find out a dint in the impugned judgments but failed in such exercise. The reasons advanced by learned courts for non-suiting the petitioner are convincing and plausible.
7. The plea that as per provision of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. The petitioner had reasons to produce additional evidence in support of her stance but was not permitted. True that under the said provision of law, a party desires to produce additional evidence can be permitted at appellate stage but that too for specific reasons mentioned thereunder.
7-A. The concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below are not open to exception and that too in absence of any illegality or irregularity therein. No misreading and non-reading of evidence has been pointed by learned counsel in the impugned judgments, which could justify indulgence by this court in its revisional jurisdiction, a limited one.
' As a sequel to the above, instant revision petition being without any substance is dismissed in limine along with C.M.1066 of 2011.