' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J. --- This revision petition is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 24.1.2002, and 20.5.2003, respectively, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chakwal and learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal.
2. Through the above-mentioned judgment and decree dated 24.1.2002, a suit filed by Gulzar Hussain (petitioner No, 1), Zahoor Hussain Shah (petitioner No, 3) and lmdad Hussain Shah (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners No, 2(a) to 2(f)), against the respondents No, 1 & 2, challenging the gift-deeds dated 03.09.1980 and 16.4.1984 by Qurban Hussain Shah, in favour of Mst. Bibi Changi (respondent No, 1) to be based on fraud, hence illegal and void had been dismissed. Whereas through the above-said judgment and decree dated 20.5.2003, the appeal filed by the petitioners had also been turned down.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners No, 1 and 3 and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners No, 2(a) to 2(f) had filed a suit, challenging the gift deeds dated 03.09.1980 and 16.04.1984 by Qurban Hussain Shah, in favour of Mst. Bibi Changi (respondent No, 1), to be based on fraud. The said suit was contested by the respondent No, 1 through written statement, whereby the execution of the gift-deeds was held to be quite in accordance with law, whereas the contentions narrated in the plaint to be totally incorrect, false and based on male fides.
4. To resolve the controversy between the parties, the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is barred under Sections 42 & 54 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is undervalued and the plaintiffs have not paid proper Court-fee? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession and Hissadar of the suit land? OPP
(5) Whether the Hibbanama dated 16.4.1984, on behalf of the Qurban Hussain Shah in favour of the defendant No, 1 (Mst. Bibi Changi) is illegal, without disposing mind, void and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP
(6) Relief.
5. Oral as well as documentary evidence of both the sides was recorded and finally the suit was dismissed through the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2002.
6. An appeal was preferred by the present petitioners No, 1 and 3, as well as the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners No, 2(a) to 2(f), before the District Court, which for hearing came before the learned Additional District Judge at Chakwal, from where the judgment and decree dated 20.5.2003 was pronounced and the appeal was dismissed.
7. Consequently, the instant revision petition has been preferred, with the contention and the grounds that the judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below being based on conjectures, surmises, misreading and non-reading of the material available on the record are not acceptable under the law and liable to be set aside.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced his arguments in the above-mentioned lines. Whereas the learned counsel appearing on behalf of other side has vehemently opposed the revision petition and the grounds taken therein.
9. Arguments heard and record perused.
10. The making of a valid gift is dependent upon three essential requirements as are enumerated in Section 149 of the book of Muhammadan law by D.F. Mu
(1) A declaration of gift by donor.
(2) The acceptance of gift by the donee
(3) Delivery of the possession of the subject property of the gift by the donor to the donee.
' In a reported judgment titled as Siraj Din v. Mst. Jamilan and another (PLD 1997 Lahore 633) it is laid down that when the making of a gift have been claimed by a legal heir then the three ingredients of declaration of the gift, its acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession must be proved through unambiguous and even impeachable evidence by the donee of such a gift. All the elements of a valid gift in favour of defendant/respondent No, 1 by her husband Qurban Hussain Shah are proved in the instant case by confidence inspiring evidence; even the reading of the document Exh. P-4 makes out a clear and an express intention of the donor to make the gift of the subject property in favour of his wife. Perusal of Exh.P-6 (Register Haqdaran Zamin for the years 1991-92) produced by the plaintiffs/petitioners themselves would reveal that the defendant No, 1/respondent. No, 1 is in possession of the disputed property, hence the basic three ingredients of a valid gift, were fulfilled, as held by the apex Court in the Judgment 2009 SCM R 623 titled Mst.
Nagina Begum v. Mst. Tahzim Akhtar and others.
11. The record shows that the gift-deeds in question were executed by Qurban Hussain Shah, in favour of his wife namely Mst. Bibi Changi (respondent No, 1) on 3.9.1980 and 16.4.1984.
12. There appears to be no controversy between the parties that Qurban Hussain Shah was the original owner of the suit property and he transferred the property in question in favour of his wife, (respondent No, 1) through registered gift-deeds dated 03.09.1980 and 16.04.1984. After execution of the above-mentioned deeds, the above-named executants/donor, remained alive for about years and died on 30.8.1996. The donor during his life-time had never challenged the deeds. No doubt, it is true that a gift executed by a sick person dependent at the mercy of his legal heirs under compelling circumstances, is illegal and is not binding upon donor but is equally true that in the present case nothing exists on the file to indicate that Qurban Hussain Shah was sick and infirm at the time of execution of the documents in question and the same had been obtained by the respondent No, 1 through fraud, coercion and undue pressure.
13. The record shows that during his life-time, Qurban Hussain Shah (deceased) neither revoked the gift nor he made any indication of any fraud or undue influence exercised on him to constitute the said gift. The present petitioners, who are his distinct kindred, remained satisfied and silent and after his death, they had filed the suit.
14. It is available on the record that at the time of execution of the above-mentioned documents and even thereafter, the above-named donor remained healthy, therefore the version narrated in the plaint that the donor was not in senses, could not be established on the record. The mere assertion of the petitioners that a fraud had been practised upon them and they had been deprived of their shares in the estate of Qurban Hussain Shah (deceased), without a positive attempt on their part to substantiate the same, is of no consequence. Needless to add that it is very easy to assert fraud but it is difficult to prove the same. Reliance in this respect is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as (2009 SCMR 70) titled Ghulam Ghous v. Muhammad Yasin and another.
15. Both the above-mentioned deeds are registered documents, hence presumption of truth is attached to them, until and unless they are rebutted through strong and cogent evidence and the petitioners have failed to bring any such evidence on the record. Therefore, no reason, cause or justification to hold the documents otherwise. In this regard, reliance can be made to the cases titled "Mirza Muhammad Sharif and 2 others v. Mst. Nawab Bib! And 4 others" (1993 SCMR 462); and "Abbas All Shah and 5 others v. Ghulam Ali and another" (2004 SCMR 1342).
16. It has been observed that Durban Hussain Shah was issueless and as looked after and cared by his wife (respondent No, 1) and the present petitioners came into picture after the death of the above-named executant, just to get his property.
17. Concurrent findings of two Courts below with regard to the validity and genuineness of gift were recorded against the petitioners which are not interferable in revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as (1989 SCMR 1415) titled Muhammad Al! Khan v. Muhammad Ashraf.
18. No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, in the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, which resulted into the impugned judgments and decrees, could either be pointed out or observed, hence not interferable in revisional jurisdiction.
19. Resultantly, the revision petition being devoid of any force and merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.