' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J. --- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Mirpur dated 31.05.2008, through which an appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur was upheld.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the present appellants/plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit against the present respondent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur regarding the disputed land, stating therein that the land measuring 42 Kanals and 12 Marlas Khewat No, 41/41 was in the joint ownership of plaintiffs and defendant. Father of present, respondent No, 1/defendant was owner of one-half share i,e, 21 Kanals and 06 Marlas who has already alienated whole of his share but has gifted 05 Kanals and 61/2 Marlas of the land fraudulently in favour of the present respondent/defendant No, 1 through a gift-deed. It was prayed by the present appellants/plaintiffs to issue a decree for declaration in their favour.
3. The present respondent/defendant No, 1 submitted written statement, stating therein that the present appellants/plaintiffs have no cause of action. Plaintiffs have filed the suit only to affect the proceedings of partition before the revenue officer. This fact will be disposed of during the partition proceedings that rather or the present respondent has alienated his whole share or not. The land measuring 05 Kanals and 61/2 Marlas was left unalienated in the name of father for the respondent, which was rightly gifted in favour of respondent/defendant No,
1. It was prayed to dismiss the instant suit.
4. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Kamran Tariq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that both the subordinate Courts have not recorded their findings in accordance with evidence on record. The learned District Judge, Mirpur has not recorded the judgment issue-wise and did not opine on each and every issue. Moreover, it is always duty of the donnee to prove a gift-deed. The learned counsel requested to remand the case to the learned District Judge, Mirpur for recording the judgment issue-wise and alternatively to accept the present appeal and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments: PLD 1980 Lah. 145 2002 SCMR 1938 2007 SCR 86 2008 SCR 406 PLJ 2010 Lah. 59
5. While Controverting the learned counsel for the appellants Raja Liaqat Ali Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that father of the present respondent/defendant No, 1 has rightly alienated his share to the respondent through a gift-deed. Abdul Ma1k/father of the respondent has not been impleaded as a party. Both the subordinate Courts have recorded their findings concurrently. The learned District Judge has recorded his finding in detail on the principal issue, so no need is required to record findings on each and every issue. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the appeal and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
1997 CLC 466 2002 CLC 1102 2003 SCR 77
6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the precedents carefully and minutely. It is an admitted fact that partition proceedings are sub judice regarding the disputed land before the revenue officer, which were kept in abeyance due to the civil suit filed by the present appellants. The present appellants/plaintiffs have not produced reliable evidence in support of their version that Abdul Malik/father of the present respondent has alienated the land in excess of his prescribed shares.
The present appellants have mentioned detail of alienation of the land in the suit to different persons but no corroboration has been brought on record through revenue record or oral evidence. The witnesses produced by the present appellants have expressed their ignorance about the land. The appellants have failed to produce any reliable evidence to show that the alienation by father of the respondent/Abdul Malik has been made beyond his shares.
7. As far objection regarding, not recording the findings on each and every issue by the learned District Judge is concerned, it is pertinent to reproduce Order 20, Rule 5 of C.P.C., which is as under:- -- "Order 20, Rule 5. Court to state its decision on each issue---In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit."
' The above-mentioned provision of law indicates that if a finding upon anyone or more of the issues is sufficient for decision of the suit, then recording of findings upon each separate issue is not necessary. In thb present case, the only principal issue was that whether father of the respondent/Abdul Malik alienated the land through gift-deed to the respondent beyond his shares or not? The learned District Judge, Mirpur has opined in detail on this important fact of controversy in his judgment. No need is left behind to record findings on the issues separately in the present case. The facts of the precedents referred by the learned counsel for the appellants have no conformity with the facts of the present case, while the facts precedents referred by the learned counsel for the respondent tender a guideline in favour of arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, the present appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil .