SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.-- These two Revision Applications are connected and I propose to dispose of the same through this common judgment.
2. Facts of the case are that the appellants filed Suit No,215 of 1985 against respondent No,4 wherein it was averred that plaintiff No,1, namely, Ahmed, was the real owner. Of the suit-land bearing Survey Nos. 5, 6, 246, 247, 422, 423, 424 and 10 in Deh Bhanoki and Survey No,323 in Deh Amri, Taluka Tando Allahyar. The plaintiff No,1, being father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Qasim and Nooral, gifted the suit-land to his said two sons in the year 1967 by way of statement recorded by the Mukhtiarkar, Tando Allahyar. Since the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were minors at that time, hence acceptance of the gift on behalf of the minors was recorded by their father, the plaintiff No,l. The names of the plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 were duly mutated in the record of rights and land Revenue Department. It was further averred in the plaint that defendant No,4 (respondent No,4 herein) was the step-son of the plaintiff No,1 and the plaintiff No,1 had not gifted any land to him. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendant No,4 was serving as Tapedar in the Revenue Department and he somehow managed to insert his name in the Revenue Record as one of the beneficiary of the gift executed by the plaintiff No,1 in favour of his two sons i.e, plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 by showing himself as one of the donees and 41 paisa shareholder in the suit-land. The plaintiffs came to know about this fraudulent act of the defendant No,4 when on the night of 3rd and 4th June, 1985 the defendant No,4 along with some persons forcibly occupied Survey Nos. 422, 423 and 10 of Deh Bhanoki and some portion of land in Deh Amri after filing Suit No,163 of 1985 against the plaintiffs.
Since the plaintiffs apprehended that the defendant No,4 might lease out the said land, therefore, the plaintiffs filed Suit No, 215 of 1985 to safeguard their interest. This suit was initially decreed vide judgment date 6-4-1988 but, on appeal, the case was remanded back and an additional issue was flamed for determination. Again the parties were allowed to adduce evidence on the additional issue and the suit of the appellants was again decreed vide judgment dated 30-4-1999. Defendant No,4 went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court but did not succeed and the judgment and decree in Suit No, 215 of 1985 attained finality. Therefore, writ of possession was issued in favour of the appellants and they were put in possession of the entire suit-land.
' However, after some time, the defendant No,4 filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. Praying that possession of land bearing Survey Nos. 246 and 247 be handed over to him as the same was not mentioned in para 12-A of the plaint in terms whereof the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. This application was allowed and possession of the above mentioned Survey Nos. 246 and 247 was handed over back to the defendant No,4. The appellants filed applications for amendment in the pleadings but the same was dismissed. Therefore, the appellants have filed the present revision application.
3. The only question which arises for determination is whether respondent No,4 has any right or title to retain Survey Nos. 246 and 247 which were owned by late Ahmed in any manner. Under issues No,1 and 1-A it has been held that no portion of suit property was ever gifted by the plaintiff i.e, Ahmed to respondent No,4. Thus, as a donee respondent No,4 did not receive any share out of the suit land which was exclusively owned by the plaintiff Ahmed. In this view of the matter, respondent No,4 has no right, title or justification to get any share out of the suit-land. In case no survey numbers were mentioned in the plaint, even then one thing was very clear and unequivocal that nothing was to go to respondent No,4 from the suit-land. Respondent No,4 also filed a Suit bearing No, 163 of 1985 to assert his right but he was unable to succeed. On the contrary, the suit file applicants was decreed in their favour and the same affirmed up to the Apex Court. In the Judgment dated 30-4-1999, issues Nos.3 and were 5 were discussed and decided together. Issue No,3 was whether defendant Muhammad Khan was ever put in possession of any portion of suit property and Issue No,5 was whether defendant Muhammad Khan has taken forcible possession of land mentioned in para 12-A of plaint pending this case? Issue No,3 was answered in negative, meaning thereby that no portion of suit land was ever put in possession of respondent No,4 Muhammad Khan while Issue No,5 was decided in affirmative. Apart from this, under Issues No,1 and 1-A, the trial Court observed that "The plaintiff No,1 has also produced daily newspaper Hilal Pakistan dated 20-10-1968 in which the plaintiff No,1 has got published an article [notice] clarifying that he had gifted his whole property to his two sons Nooral and Qasim and nobody else has got any right claim over his land." In this regard Exhibit 72/B is of vital importance. The learned trial Court has dilated upon this document in detail and had observed that the name of the respondent No,4 was written out of lines and in different handwriting and that the word three also clearly shows that it has been converted from word two by putting three points (dots) over it I different manner.
Finally the trial Court concluded as under:-- "From the above discussion it is very much clear that the plaintiff No,1 had gifted his land to co- plaintiffs namely Nooral and Qasim and also accepted the gift on their behalf they being minors at that time and he has not gifted any portion of his land to defendant No,4 and there is interpolation in Exh.72/B regarding gift of portion of suit land to defendant No,4. Accordingly the said interpolation in Exh. 72/B does not create any right title of interest in favour of the defendant No,4 regarding suit land."
4. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that no land was ever gifted to given to respondent No,4 by plaintiff Ahmed. Therefore, it was unjust to hand over any of the suit land to him merely on the ground that some survey numbers were inadvertently not mentioned in para 12-A. However, the same is clearly mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. It was not the case of the respondent No,4 that he was unaware of the claim of the applicants. The respondent No,4 was well aware of the claim of the applicants that they are claiming the entire suit land which was originally owned by their father and was subsequently gifted by him to his two sons, namely the applicants herein. Even in para 11 of the written statement the respondent No,4 has made reference to Survey Nos. 246 and 247.
5. In a nutshell, the suit land was exclusively owned by the father of the appellants, namely, Ahmed.
It was claimed by respondent No,4 that the property owned by his father, namely, Ahmed, was gifted by him to his three sons, namely, the applicants and the respondent No,4, vide gift deed dated 1-6-1967. This aspect of the case was disputed by the applicants who claim that the land was owned by Ahmed who had gifted the entire land to his two sons, namely, Qasim and Nooral.
Nothing, and I repeat, nothing was ever given by the said Ahmed to the respondent No,4. It was alleged by the applicants that the. Respondent No,4, who was working as Tapedar, managed interpolation in the Revenue Record and inserted his name as one of the donees of the gift deed made by the said Ahmed in favour of his two sons. A perusal of the record shows that this aspect of the case has been discussed in minute detail in the judgment dated 30-4-1999 under issues No,1 and 1-A and it has been held Ahmed has gifted his entire land to his two sons and that that no piece of land was ever gifted by late Ahmed to the respondent No,4. This discussion leads to two conclusions: (i) respondent No,4 has no share in the land gifted by the said Ahmed to his two sons, namely, Nooral and Qasim, therefor, he has no right or title to retain any piece of land out of the Survey numbers owned by Ahmed and gifted by him to his two sons, and (ii) the evidence produced by the parties, rather by respondent No,4 himself, shows and proves that the respondent No,4, by taking advantage of his official position as Tapedar, made fraudulent entries in the Revenue Record which were overturned by the trial Court.
6. A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent No,1 in Suit No,215 of 1985 (para 11) clearly shows that the respondent No,4 was well aware that the litigation is also with regard to Survey Nos.246 and 247, admeasuring 16.6 acres. Even the decree passed in Suit No,215 of 1985 was executed and the entire land owned by Ahmed and gifted by him to the applicants, was restored to the applicants. It was after lapse of quite some time that the respondent No,4 moved an application for restoration of the Survey Nos. 246 and 247 to him as the same were not mentioned in para. 12-A in terms whereof the suit was decreed. This application was allowed and lands bearing Survey Nos. 246 and 247 were restored to respondent No,4. This was done despite the fact that the trial Court has already held that no portion of the land owned by Ahmed was ever gifted by him to respondent No,4. For a minor omission the applicants are being deprived of their valuable property and the same is being given to a person who has already been declared as not entitled to the same. Even otherwise, this omission would be of no help to respondent as the respondent No,4 has claimed the said land on the basis of the gift deed and it has been held that there was interpolation therein and in fact no land was gifted by Ahmed to him. The respondent No,4 has not shown any right or title to the said land, therefore, he is not entitled to get possession of a piece of land to which he is not entitled.
7. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the applicants are clearly entitled to get the possession of the entire land owned by Ahmed and which was gifted by him to his two sons, namely, Nooral and Qasim vide statement dated 1-6-1967. Nothing out of this land can be given to respondent No,4 or anybody else.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that I allow these revision applications, dismiss the application of respondent No,4 and allow the application of applicants filed before the lower Court.
The applicants should be put in possession of the entire land mentioned in the gift deed dated 1-6- 1967.