1. MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 27.07.2010 and 16.03.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class and learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, respectively, whereby an application moved by the petitioners under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for the grant of temporary injunction in a suit for declaration was dismissed and an appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed as well.
2. 2.Concisely put, the facts are that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, contending therein that Faqeer Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the suit/revision petition was a lessee under the Province of Punjab in respect of land measuring 104 Kanals, situated in Chak No,5/K.B, Tehsil and District, Pakpattan under the 5-year scheme. It was further maintained in the plaint that Faqeer Muhammad, the aforementioned made a gift of the suit land to his grandsons, namely, Alam Sher and Aamir Sher. The donees were murdered, with the result that the suit land allegedly devolved upon the petitioners / plaintiffs. The petitioner No,1 is the mother of the alleged donees, while petitioner No,2 is their sister. On the basis of these averments made in the plaint, the petitioners called in question the validity of mutation of inheritance No,251 attested on 24.11.2004 in favour of the respondents.
3. 3.Along with the plaint, the petitioners also filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction, which as stated above, was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.07.2010 and an appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court by the order dated 16.03.2011.
4. 4.Needless to say, the petitioners have filed this revision petition to assail the validity of the aforesaid orders. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the learned Courts below did not appreciate the controversy in proper perspective. It has been urged by him that Faqeer Muhammad made a gift of the suit land to Alam Sher and Amir Sher for a simple reason that their father, Sher Muhammad died in his lifetime, and it was desired by him that the offspring of his pre-deceased son might not be deprived of his legacy. This was the motive behind making a gift of the suit land to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. A great deal of emphasis has been laid on the fact that one of the respondents is incarcerated on the charge of murdering Alam Sher and Amir Sher, the alleged donees. Against this backdrop, it is strenuously argued by him that mutation of inheritance No,251 dated 24.11.2004 is ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners. He further makes the submission that the petitioners did succeed in showing that they have a prima facie case and that if an conjunctive order was not passed, they would suffer an irreparable loss. He sums up his submissions by adding that the petitioners being in possession of the suit land, the balance of convenience also lies in their favour.
5. 5.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record appended to the revision petition.
6. 6.I am unable to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Admittedly, the suit land vests in the Government of the Punjab. Therefore, it is inconceivable that a valid gift could be made of the suit land by Faqeer Muhammad in contravention of the provisions of Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. Furthermore, the claim of the petitioners is not backed up by any document. This is not to say that a Muslim cannot make an oral gift, but in the instant case proprietary rights were not conferred on Faqeer Muhammad, the alleged donor. Therefore, any transfer with regard to the land in question was to be first approved of by the Collector of District in terms of Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. It is also of significance that the alleged gift was made in the year 2003, while the petitioners instituted this suit in the mid-2010. Again, mutation of inheritance was attested way back in the year 2004. Had there been a valid gift made in favour of Alam Sher and Amir Sher, they could have challenged the aforesaid mutation in their lifetime. Prima facie, in the face of mutation No,251 dated 24.11.2004, the petitioners do not have any case, much less a strong one to dispose the Courts towards granting temporary injunction in their favour. They have still a long way to go to prove that a valid gift was ever made by Faqeer Muhammad in favour of Alam Sher and Amir Sher deceased. It can hardly be overemphasized that the revenue record also does not support the case of the petitioners. Contrary to the claim made by the plaintiffs, the respondents have been shown in the revenue record to be in possession of the suit land. As things stand, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for the grant of temporary injunction. It is well-established law that for the grant of temporary injunction, a plaintiff has to prove three ingredients: (i) prima facie case, (ii), balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable loss and if any of the ingredients is missing, the courts would refuse to grant temporary injunction.
7. For what has been discussed above, I am not inlined to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the learned courts below. The Courts below exercised the jurisdiction vested in them in accordance with the law. This petition being without any merits is hereby dismissed in limine.