' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Khanpur dated 30-6-2004, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the respondents and decreed their suit and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Khanpur dated 18-4-2001.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that Mst. Haliman, predecessor of respondents, filed a suit for declaration on 7-1-1992 challenging therein the mutation of Tamleek No,1200 attested on 31-8-1991, of the suit property allegedly by Mst. Haliman in favour of Yar Muhammad-defendant, real brother of plaintiff. The defendant appeared and contested this suit. He also filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was consolidated with the former. The trial court framed consolidated issues and invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 18-4-2001 dismissed the suit for declaration and decreed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the defendant. During the pendency of suit; Mst. Haliman died and her successors filed appeal before the first appellate court. Vide judgment and decree dated 30-6-2004, first appellate court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit for declaration filed by Mst. Haliman and dismissed the suit for permanent injunction filed by Yar Muhammad. Hence, this civil revision .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that most of the legal heirs of Mst. Haliman compromised with the petitioners, therefore, the findings recorded by the first appellate court on issues Nos.1 to 3 are not sustainable under the law. Further states that the first appellate court has ignored that Mst. Haliman herself not appeared before the court; that the evidence produced by the respondents was not properly appreciated by the first appellate court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance on "PLD 2003 SC 688 (Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad)" states that mutation confers no right and beneficiary under the mutation is bound to prove the original transaction and that the predecessor of petitioners being beneficiary of alleged gift, was bound under the law to prove the gift independent of impugned mutation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record minutely with their able assistance.
6. I have noticed that the first appellate court scrutinized the evidence available on the file led by both the parties and appreciated the same in accordance with existing law on the point. No need to discuss again each and every point in issue. I have observed that the first appellate court has in detail discussed each and every point involved with regard to the issues. The objection of learned counsel for petitioners that Mst. Haliman did not appear as a witness in the case. I have observed that the statement of P. W.1 (Bashir Ahmad), one of the plaintiffs, was recorded on 19-12-2000 and that the amended plaint dated 15-6-1998 was filed on the death of Mst. Haliman, original plaintiff.
Therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is without any legal substance.
Now it is settled that when any transaction on behalf of a sister in favour of brother in shape of relinquishment of right of inheritance or transfer of property received in inheritance by a sister is challenged A before the court by the alleged donor and when plaintiff makes statement on oath before the court about the invalidity of transaction, the onus to prove the transaction as valid one shifts on the other side, who is the beneficiary of transaction. In this case, when one of the plaintiffs appeared as P.W.1 and made statement on oath before the court, then defendant beneficiary of impugned mutation was bound under the law not only to prove the mutation but independent of mutation he was bound to prove the alleged gift in his favour by proving the ingredients of gift, the offer, acceptance and delivery of possession under the gift. I have observed that the defendant not only failed to establish the transaction of gift independent of mutation but also not alleged offer, acceptance and delivery of possession suit land under the gift. In these circumstances, no case of interference by this court under section 115 of the C.P.C. Has been made out. Resultantly, the instant civil revision being devoid of any substance is dismissed.
7. Before parting with the judgment, contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that most of the legal heirs of Mst. Haliman compromised with him and some of them also made their statements before the trial Court and this court. This objection will be available to the petitioners at the time of execution or implementation of decree in the record.