' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 and 29.09.2012, whereby the learned Courts below dismissed the suit for declaration, filed by the petitioners on the ground, that the respondents, who are real sisters of the predecessor of the petitioners, namely Natha, made an oral gift of the legacy left by their father namely Fazal Deen.
2. The controversy involves in this case relates to the common story, where the brothers deprived their sisters generally on the basis of gifts/oral gifts from their right of inheritance secured and guaranteed by the Allah Almighty. The record reveals, that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Natha filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction on the ground, that the suit property was owned by the father of the parties to the case, deceased Fazal Deen; on the Chehlum of deceased Fazal Deen the respondents, who are real sisters of the petitioners orally gifted the suit property in their favour in lieu of the services rendered by the petitioner/Natha to his father; the possession which was already with the petitioners was handed over; the inheritance mutation was entered wherein the names of the respondents (real sisters) of the petitioner were also entered the petitioner/Natha when intended to transfer a part of the suit property in favour of his son, the respondents, who were co-owners in the suit property refused to honour their commitment and denied to transfer the title in favour of his son; and lastly prayed, that as the suit property had already been transferred by way of the oral gift by the respondents, therefore, the suit be decreed.
3. The respondents/defendants exclaimed while filing the written statement, that the they are owners of the suit land to the extent of their shares and no oral gift was made in favour of the petitioners.
4. The learned trial Court after completing all the legal as well as, codal formalities dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012, against which an appeal was filed, which too was dismissed on 31.03.2016. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is not denied, as evinced from the record, that parties to the case are legal heirs of deceased Fazal Deen, who left the suit land as his legacy; the inheritance mutation was entered wherein the names of respondents (daughters of the Fazal Deen) are mentioned as owners of the property. The claim of the petitioner/Natha based upon an oral gift, which allegedly was made at the time of Chehlum of predecessor of the parties.
7. It is well established proposition of law, that the oral gift is to be proved independently, giving time, date, place and names of the witnesses in whose presence the oral gift was made. Whereas in this case, as appears from the record, the petitioners have failed to fulfill the mandatory requirements of an oral gift, as no specific date, time and place are mentioned in the plaint and names of the witnesses. The witnesses appeared on behalf of the petitioners as concurrently recorded by the learned Courts, below, could not substantiate the claim of the petitioners and even the petitioner/Natha himself failed to prove his case, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment titled "Muhammad Nawaz through LRs v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs, and others" (2013 SCMR 1300). The relevant paragraph of the judgment is re-produced as under:- "In this view of the matter we are of the view that although the oral agreement is permissible under the law, yet, it must be proved through a credible and unimpeachable character of evidence and both the aforesaid qualities are not available in the evidence adduced by the appellant/plaintiff in the instant case. Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied upon the case of Mst.
Sardar Bibi (Supra) in which the learned High Court has held that "In a case of this kind when both parties stand to gain or lose valuable property the oral evidence is always to be approached with caution and it is safer to rely on that evidence which is on accord with admitted circumstances and probabilities." We also hold that although it is not the requirement of law that an agreement or contact of sale of immovable property should only be in writing, however, in a case where party comes forward to seek a decree for specific performance of contract of sale of immovable property on the basis of an oral agreement alone, heavy burden lies on the party to prove that there was consensus ad idem between both the parties for a concluded oral agreement. An oral agreement by which the parties intended to be bound is valid and enforceable, however, it requires for it prove clearest and most satisfactory evidence."
' I am also fortified by the judgment of this Court cited as "Rana Surbland Khan v. B.K. Enterprises through Director" (PLD 2015 Lahore 681).
8. It is common practice of the sub-continent as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in plethora of judgments that the sisters/daughters are deprived from their secured and guaranteed right of inheritance by using these types of the devices. Admittedly, the inheritance mutation was entered in the name of the respondents and they (sisters of the petitioner/Natha) have flatly and categorically denied the factum of the making oral gift in favour of the petitioner.
This practice has already been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the landmark judgment cited as "Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi" (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed, that the women, who are weaker segment of the society, should not be deprived from their C right of inheritance in the name of customs or by emotionally exploiting them. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "As is discussed in the case of Haji Nizam (approved in Mohammad Bashir's case) which was also a case of clash of Islamic principles against those of other systems-a widowed daughter-in-law, seeking maintenance for her minor child against the grandfather, it is the duty of the Courts within the permissible fields, as specified therein, to enforce Islamic law and principles. This case also required similar, if not better, treatment. The scope of rights of inheritance of females (daughter in this case) is so wide and their thrust so strong that it is the duty of the Courts to protect and enforce them, even if the legislative action for this purpose of protection in accordance with Islamic Jurisprudence, is yet to take its own time.
' In the rural areas where 80% of the female population resides, the inheritance rights of the females are not as protected and enforced, as Islam requires. Cases similar to this do come up even to Supreme Court. In a very large majority of them the Courts act rightly and follow the correct rules.
But it is a wide guess as to how many females take the courage of initiation or continuing the legal battle with their close one in matters of inheritance, when they are being deprived. The percentage is very low indeed. Neither the Courts nor the law as at present it stands interpreted, are to be blamed. The social organizations including those in the legal field are yet to show up in the rural area. They are mostly managed by Urban volunteers. When will they be able to -move out of mostly managed by Urban volunteers. When will they be able to move out of sophisticated methods of American speech/ seminar system and all that goes with it, in the enlightened urban society? It is a pity that while an ubranised brother, who is labourer in a neighbouring Mill, has the protection of such mass of Labour Laws; which sometimes even Courts find it difficult properly to count-right from the definition of 'rights', up to the enforcement even in homes, through 'Social Security' Laws, with web of network of 'Inspectorates' etc. Who are supposed to be helping him at every step, his unfortunate sister, who is deprived of her most valuable rights of inheritance even today by her own kith and kin-sometimes by the urbanized brother himself, is not even cognizant of all this. She is not being educated enough about her rights. Nearly four decades have passed. A new set up is needed in this behalf. Social Organizations run by women have not succeeded in rural field. They may continue for the urban areas where their utility might also be improved and upgraded. At thesame time they need to be equipped with more vigorous training in the field of Islamic learning and teachings. They should provide the bulk of research in Islamic Law and principles dealing with women. It is not the reinterpretation alone which is the need of the day but a genuine effort by them for the reconstruction of the Islamic concepts in this field. It cannot be achieved by the use of alien manner or method alone."
9. The petitioner/Natha had also taken another ground in support of his case, that all the expenses of marriages of the respondents were borne by him and in response thereof, the oral gift was made in his favour. It is sorry state of affairs, that the petitioner/Natha is taking the plea, which on the face of it is shameful. The brothers always played their role actively at the time of marriage of their sisters and even otherwise if admitted for a moment, the respondents (sisters) could not deprive from their right of inheritance, on this baseless ground.
10. Both the learned courts below carefully examined and appreciated the record and correctly reached to the conclusion that the petitioners have miserably failed to prove their case in any manner whatsoever.
11. Although learned counsel for the petitioners argued the case at length but could not point out any illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional defect in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below. It has been ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, that the concurrent findings on facts should not be interfered in routine, but in an extra ordinary circumstance, when the learned courts below have committed serious jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.
I find support from the valuable judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, titled "Cantonment Board through Executive Officer Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469), Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCMR 1373), Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 984), Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another (2008 SCMR 428), and "Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Kallu and others"
(2008 SCMR 452), that the High Court, in the case of concurrent findings, normally does not interfere unless the E same is result of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the learned courts below.
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its recent judgment (supra) titled "Cantonment Board Gough Executive Officer Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others" (2014 SCMR 161) observed as under:-- "In other words, the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Under which a High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction, confer an exceptional and necessary power intended to secure effective exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or fact, which do not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the Court. In the instant case, the learned High Court, in law, could not have investigated into the facts or exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of facts or grounds, which were already proved by the parties by leading evidence. We are of the considered view that the judgment impugned in these proceedings is unexceptionable. The learned High Court was justified in not interfering in the concurrent findings of fact which were based on the material brought on record and proper appreciation of evidence."
12. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings renderer the learned courts below. Resultantly, this revision petition having no force stands dismissed. No order as to cost.