Ali Akbar Qureshi, J:- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2016 and 19.10.2015, whereby the learned Courts below, through concurrent findings, decreed the suit filed by the respondents No.1 to 5.2. Shortly, the facts as stated are that, the respondents No.1 to 5 (the plaintiffs) instituted a suit for declaration on the ground, that the respondents and the petitioners are the legal heirs of one Painda Khan, who died leaving behind the respondents and the petitioners to mourn his death and the property in question; that the petitioner No.1 (Imtiaz Afzal), who is grandson of Painda Khan, by playing fraud and misrepresentation, succeeded to get a general power of attorney dated 01.07.2009 in his favour with the connivance of petitioners No.2 and 3; that on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney, the petitioner No.1 transferred the land in question by way of gift deeds No.416, 417 and 418 dated 25.11.2009 in favour of petitioners No.2, 3 and respondent No.6; that the power of attorney and the gift deeds are result of fraud and misrepresentation and this all was managed by the petitioners and respondent No.6 to deprive the respondents No.1 to 5 from their secured and guaranteed right of inheritance and lastly prayed, that gift deeds and mutations be declared illegal and ineffective upon the rights of the respondents and suit be decreed.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners through written statement, wherein they controverted the contents of the plaint and submitted, that the power of attorney was validly executed in favour of the petitioner No.1.
4. The learned trial Court decreed the suit after completing all the legal and codal formalities. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned appellate Court. Hence, this civil revision.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. This is another case like many others, wherein the brothers (the petitioners No.2 to 3 and respondent No.6), by playing fraud and misrepresentation, deprived their real sisters and mother from their right of inheritance and refused to give the shares from the legacy left by their predecessor namely, Painda Khan.
7. As depicts from the record, the petition er No.1, who is son of petitioner No.2 and grandson of deceased Painda Khan, with the connivance of his father and real uncles, by playing fraud and misrepresentation, prepared a forged power of attorney dated 01.07.2009 and subsequently transferred the suit land by way of a gift deed in favour of his father and two uncles.
8. In order to highlight the fraud committed by the petitioners, it is necessary to scan the record.
9. As regard the power of attorney, an advocate namely, Malik Ghulam Shabbir engaged by the petitioners on 11.09.2009, recorded his statement on behalf of the petitioners in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent No.1 (the plaintiff), that the petitioners shall not pressurize their father for alienating his property.
During the proceedings of the instant civil suit, the petitioners admitted the statement recorded by their counsel.
10. The afore-referred Court proceedings reveal, that the statement was recorded on 11.09.2009, whereas the power of attorney was executed fraudul ently on 01.07.2009, meaning thereby , that till 11.09.2009, the general power of attorney , claimed to have been executed by Painda Khan was not in existence and it was prepared by playing fraud and misrepresentation.
11. There is another important aspect of the case, that the petitioner No.1, the general attorney , transferred the suit land through gift deed in favour of his father but without prior approval of the principal owner i.e. Painda Khan, the transfer of the land by the petitioner No.1 in favour of his father and uncles is liable to be set at naught on this score alone as no permission was obtained from the principal i.e. Painda Khan. Reliance is placed on Mst. Naila Kausar and another v . Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh and others (2016 SCMR 1781 ).
12. It is the claim of the petitioners, that the petitioner No.1, on the basis of the power of attorney executed by their predecessor namely , Painda Khan, transferred the land in question through gift deeds dated 25.11.2009 in favour of the petitioners No.2 and 3 and respondent No.6. It is to be seen, as to whether the petitioners (the defendants), have fulfilled the requirement of a gift.
13. It is settled proposition of law, that the onus was upon the petitioners to prove the ingredients of gift in respect of the gift deeds allegedly executed by the petitioner No.1 in favour of his father and others. The contents of the written statement are completely silent and it is nowhere mentioned, the date, time and place and names of witnesses, in whose presence the gift was made. While filing the written statement, the petitioners in a very leisure manner , tried to contradict the contents of the plaint but remained completely unsuccessful, therefore, it is held on the basis of the record, that the petitioners have failed to prove the ingredients of gift made by the petitioner No.1 on the basis of the general power of attorney .
14. Admittedly , the petitioners are beneficiaries of the gift transaction, therefore, they were bound to prove the validity of the general power of attorney , oral gifts and gift deeds alongwith mutat ions. Reliance is placed on Ch. Muneer Hussain v. Mst. Wazeeran Mai alias Mst. Wazir Mai (PLD 2005 SC 658) and Khan Muhammad v.
Muhammad Din through LRs (2010 SCMR 1351 ).
15. There is another important aspect of the case, that the petitioners No.2 and 3 and respondent No.6 are claiming the ownership of the suit property on the basis of the gift made by the petitioner No.1 being the attorney of deceased Painda Khan.
16. It is settled proposition of law, that the gift made by an attorney has no legal effect and this type of the gift is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others (1994 SCMR 818), Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others v. Muhammad Malik and 2 others (PLD 2008 SC 389) and Mukhtar Ahmad v. Muhammad Ameen (deceased) through Legal Heirs and 8 others (2017 MLD 845 ).
17. The practice to deprive the sisters from their right of inheritance secured and guaranteed by Allah Almighty particularly by the brothers has already been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a landmark judgment, cited as Ghulam Ali and 2 others Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1). Relevant part of the judgment ( supra ) 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 protec tion 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 the same 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 reconstru ction of the Islamic concepts in this field. It cannot be achieved by the use of alien manner or method alone."
18. In this case, the petitioners adopted a novel way to achieve their goal i.e. to deprive their real sisters and mother from the legacy of their predecessor namely, Painda Khan, firstly a forged and fabricated power of attorney was prepared in the name of the grandson of the predecessor of the parties namely, Painda Khan and thereafter gift deeds on the basis of the power of attorney but unfortunately despite putting hectic efforts, could not prove the validity of the power of attorney and the gift deeds being the beneficiary.
19. The learned Courts below and particularly the learned first appellate Court carefully re-appreciated the evidence, ocular as well as documentary, produced by the parties and finally on the strength of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan (supra), dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent conclusion rendered by the learned Courts below. Reliance is placed on 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) and Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCMR 1373).
20. Resultantly , this civil revision has no force and stands dismissed in limine with cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) which shall be paid to the respondents No.1 to 5. If the petitioners and respondent No.6 fail to pay the cost, the respondents No.1 to 5 will be free to recover the same in accordance with law .