' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this revision petition, the petitioners have called in question the legality of judgment and decree dated 30-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Bahawalpur whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-6-1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class 2nd Class, Bahawalpur passing the preliminary decree in a suit for partition filed by. Muhammad Hassan, predecessor in interest of the respondents, was dismissed.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the Muhammad Hassan, predecessor in interest of the respondents instituted a suit for seeking decree for partition in respect of House No,1323/13, B-III situated at Mohallah Hassanpura Bahawalpur stating that Mst. Ghulam Sakina, sister of aforesaid Muhammad Hassan was owner of the aforesaid house, who died issueless on 30-3-1987. The plaintiffs being legal heirs of Mst. Ghulam Sakina deceased along with his sisters namely Bakhat Bibi and Mst. Manzoor Bibi is entitled to the partition and separate possession of his share on the basis of inheritance. During the pendency of the suit Muhammad Nazir Ahmad son of Mst. Manzoor Bibi sister of Mst. Ghulam Sakina made an application for impleading him as a party on the ground that the eastern portion of the said house was transferred in his favour by Mst. Ghulam Sakina though gift deed dated 7-4-1987 as such, the property gifted away to him, cannot be made subject of the partition suit. He was impleaded accordingly.
3. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit and the learned trial Court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- "Issues ' No,] Whether Mst. Ghulam Sakina predecessor in interest of the parties transferred a portion of disputed property as stated in Para No,1 of written statement filed by defendants Nos.2 and 3 by way of Hibba Nama dated 7-4-1987, if so its effect.? OPD 2 &3 ' No,2 Whether Mst. Nasreen Bibi the daughter of Sardar Rahim Bakhsh is a necessary party in this suit? OPD 2 & 3 ' No,3 Whether the suit is deficient for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? If so, its effect and what is the proper court fee? OPD 2 & 3 ' No,4 Whether the alleged Hibba Nama dated 7-4-1987 in favour of defendant No,3 is forged, fictitious and inoperative upon the rights of defendant No,1 and plaintiff OP defendant No,1 and OPP?
' No,5 Whether the written statement filed by defendant No,3 is deficient for the purpose of court fee? OPD ' No,6 Whether the suit property is liable to partition and among whom? OPP ' No,7 Relief. "
4. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, concluded that Nazir Ahmad failed to prove the execution of gift deed Exh.D-1 in his favour and passed the preliminary decree by fixing the share of Muhammad Hassan plaintiff as 1/2 and shares of Mst. Bakhat Bibi and Mst. Manzoor Bibi as 1/4 and 1/4 in the disputed property. The legal heirs of Mst. Manzoor Bibi and Muhammad Nazir Ahmad deceased preferred an appeal against the aforesaid preliminary judgment and decree which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30-11-2001. Hence, the legal heirs petitioners/ defendants have filed this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Mst. Ghulam Sakina has gifted away the eastern portion of the disputed house in favour of Muhammad Nazir Ahmad vide gift deed dated 7-4-4987 and the possession was handed over to him; that the petitioners have proved the execution of gift deed by examining scribe thereof namely Abdul Salam Chughtai DW-1 and Abdul Rashid Hashmi DW-2, its marginal witness. The possession was also delivered to the donee but both the learned Courts below have not appreciated this aspect of the case and passed the preliminary decree in favour of the respondents arbitrarily especially when the witnesses examined by the respondents have also not specifically denied the factum of the execution of gift deed in favour of Muhammad Nazir Ahmad deceased. Relies on case titled "Maulvi Abdullah and others v.
Abdul Aziz and others (1987 SCMR 1403), "Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others, Abdul Karim and others v. Abdullah and others (PLD 1968 Supreme Court 140)", and "Muhammad Bashir v.
Mst. Sattar Bibi and another (PLD 1995 Lahore 321)".
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents and the legal heirs of Muhammad Hassan deceased have contended that Muhammad Nazir Ahmad deceased was in occupation of the disputed house as a tenant; that the eastern portion of the house in question was never gifted away to him; that gift deed dated 7-4-1987 is a forged and fictitious document; that Mst. Ghulam Sakina deceased remained in possession of the disputed property throughout her life time and she died in the said house; that it has been admitted by the scribe of the gift deed that the Mst. Ghulam Sakina had not put her thumb impression on the gift deed in his present that she has been shown owner of the disputed property in the record of the excise and taxation department; that the mutation of inheritance has been rightly sanctioned in favour of the legal heirs of Mst. Ghulam Sakina deceased; that the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below on the question of fact are liable to be maintained. Relies on case titled "Mst. Siddiqan and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others 1993 MLD 1979" and "Janat Bibi v. Sikandar Ali and others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 642)."
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. It is an admitted fact that Mst. Ghulam Sakina died issueless and Muhammad Hassan, Mst.
Bakkat Bibi and Mst. Manzoor Bibi are her legal heirs. Muhammad Hassan instituted a suit for seeking decree for separate possession of his share in the estate of Mst. Ghulam Sakina wherein Muhammad Nazir Ahmad son of Mst. Manzoor Bibi made an application for impleading him as a party on the ground that the eastern portion of the disputed property was gifted away to him by Mst. Ghulam Sakina deceased vide gift deed dated 7-4-1987. In order to prove the execution of gift deed, Muhammad Nazir Ahmad examined the scribe of the document Abdul Salam Chughtai DW- 1, who admitted during cross examination that Mst. Ghulam Sakina did not appear during the execution of the gift deed, he wrote gift deed Exh.D-1 and Exh.D-2 and Exh.D-2 was executed in favour of Mst. Nasreen Bibi. He further admitted that Mst. Nasreen Bibi and Mst. Ghulam Sakina did not appear before him, Mst. Ghulam Sakina while standing behind the curtain informed him, she did not put her thumb impression in his presence and Part No,3 of Exh.D-1 was prepared by Muhammad Nazir Ahmad himself, the identity card of Mst. Ghulam Sakina was also produced by Muhammad Nazir Ahmad. He also admitted that Muhammad Nazir Ahmad was not personally known to him and he himself informed that he is Muhammad Nazir Ahmad. Abdul Rashid DW-2 stated that on the gift deed Exh.D-1 and Exh.D-2 Mst. Ghulam Sakina put her signature in their presence and he identified Mst. Ghulam Sakina at the time of execution of gift deed. During cross- examination he further deposed that there was a distance of 12-feet in between the sitting of petition writer and Mst. Ghulam Sakina and after the execution of gift deed, he took the gift deeds and the register of petition writer to Mst. Ghulam Sakina, who signed the same. He admitted that he did not put signature on Exh.D-1 as a witness and he signed the same as identifier. He also admitted that Mst. Nasreen Bibi daughter of Mst. Bakhat Bibi is alive and Mst. Ghulam Sakina did not appear before Abdul Salam DW-1, the petition writer, however she herself asked him about the execution of the document.
9. Where a document is allegedly executed by a parda observing a lady, the beneficiaries of that document are bound to establish by highly satisfactory and strong evidence that not only the document was executed by such Parda observing lady but also that such illiterate Parda observing lady had fully understood the contents of the document. But in this case the required standard of evidence is missing to establish a valid gift. Allegedly, two gift deeds were executed by, Mst.
Ghulam Sakina, one in favour of Muhammad Nazir Ahmad and the other in favour of Mst. Nasreen Bibi but Mst. Nasreen Bibi never appeared during the litigation in order to claim herself to, be the donee/part of the disputed property. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, the donee, admitted that Mst.
Ghulam Sakina remained alive for five months after the execution of the alleged gift deed in his favour but she did not get the gift deed registered in his favour. He also admitted the execution of rent deed in favour of Mst. Ghulam Sakina. The copy of PT-I for the year 1989-1990 also reveals that Muhammad Nazir Ahmad was in occupation of the disputed property as tenant whereas Mst.
Bakhat Bibi, Manzoor Bibi and Muhammad Hassan have been shown owner of the disputed property. The aforesaid entries were made after the death of Mst. Ghulam Sakina. Admittedly, Mst.
Ghulam Sakina, the donor did not appear before the scribe of Exh.D-1 and had not put her thumb impression/signature in his presence. The alleged attesting witnesses of deed namely Abdul Rashid Hashmi also admitted that Mst. Ghulam Sakina did not appear before Abdul Salam DW-1, the scribe and he took the stamp paper to her for getting her signatures. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad failed to prove the execution of document Exh.D-1 in his favour in accordance with the provision of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The case-law produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case, the claimant of the gift deed had badly failed to establish the execution of a valid gif deed in his favour.
10. The concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below are based upon the objective appraisal of evidence and correct application of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any material irregularity or illegality in both the impugned judgments and decrees which are in accordance with law and are hereby maintained.
' Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is without any merits, the same is hereby dismissed.
However, as this is an old case wherein the preliminary decree was passed on 16-1-1994, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the main case expeditiously within a period of three months positively.