' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the two courts below whereby, the suit instituted by the respondent Ali Muhammad for declaration was decreed in his favour against the petitioner.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are 'that the respondent instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge on 28-2-1988 with the contention that the land measuring 47-Kanals 4-Marlas described in Paragraph No,1 of the plaint was owned by one Gamma son of Ilma. The respondent further contended that through a mutation of gift No,2236 dated 20-11-1984 the said Gamma son of Ilam gifted the land' in favour of the respondent and that he also got possession of the same at the time of the gift. The respondent contended that the petitioner Mustafa son of Allah Ditta/defendant was illegally interfering in the proprietary as well as possessory rights of the respondent in respect of the subject land and prayed for passing of the decree of declaration as well as of permanent injunction.
3. This suit was contested by the petitioner by submitting their written statement dated 28-3-1988 and in paragraph No,2 of the written 'statement on facts the petitioner contended that-the predecessor of the respondent was admittedly Gamma son of Ilma but he has entered into an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner instituted a suit for specific 'performance of the agreement against the said Gamma son of Ilma as well as the present respondent before the Civil Court at Itharian. The petitioner further admitted that the said Gamma son of Ilma denied the entering into any agreement to sell with the petitioner, therefore, the suit instituted by the present petitioner for specific performance was withdrawn by him. The petitioner claimed that he is one of the legal heirs of Gamma son of Ilma, therefore, he resisted the suit instituted by the respondent.
4. The learned Civil Judge, Kharian framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff became the exclusive owner in possession of the disputed land on the basis of a gift in his favour dated 20-11-1984 by Gamma, the deceased and in this connection a Mutation No,2236 was entered in the said gift? OPP
(3) Whether the suit filed by the defendant as withdrawn by the defendant under a compromise, if so what was the compromise and what was its effect? OPP
(4) Relief.
5. The parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 7-5-1997 decreed the suit .Of the respondent in his favour as prayed for. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, which appeal come up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian District Gujrat, which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3-6-2003. Hence, this civil revision.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent could not prove the three ingredients of the gift in accordance with law, therefore, the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned first appellate court were not justified to pass the impugned judgments and decrees in favour of the respondent. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an interim injunction issued against the disposal of the suit property by the previous owner Gamma son of Ilma.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to contest the ownership as well as the gift made in favour of the respondent by the previous owner. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner admittedly instituted a suit for specific performance which he asserted to have been withdrawn and a specific issue No,3 was framed by the learned Civil Judge on this point but the petitioner did not produce the copies of the pleadings or of the final order passed in the said civil suit.' It is thus concluded that the petitioner is left with no locus standi to file the present petition.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.
9. The issue No,3 was very vital to decide the locus standi of the petitioner and even in the written statement in paragraph No,2 on facts of the case the petitioner admitted that he claimed an agreement to sell in his favour ,from the previous owner Gamma son of Ilma and he instituted a suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell but the said Gamma son of Ilma denied the entering into any agreement to sell with the petitioner, therefore, the suit instituted by the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement to sell was withdrawn by him. The petitioner did not produce the copies of the pleadings of the said civil suit nor of the final order having been passed by the Civil Judge but the admission made by him in written statement is sufficient to non-suit the petitioner in respect of his locus standi. The learned Civil Judge recorded the finding on issue No,3 in accordance with law and held that the petitioner has no locus standi to contest the legality of the gift made by Gamma son of. Ilma in favour of the respondent. The learned first appellate court rightly upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. The two courts below have passed concurrent findings in accordance with law against the petitioner. Even this contention that there was some injunctive order issued by the civil court in the suit instituted by' the petitioner for specific performance is not proved through any documentary evidence having been produced by the petitioner. No illegality is pointed out or found by this Court is the judgments passed by the two courts below. This civil revision is devoid Of any merits is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.