1. CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.---The concurrent decrees of the two Courts below are the subject matter of Civil Revision in hand, whereby declaratory suit as well as appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Inessential detail apart, through his suit, it was the stance of the petitioner/plaintiff that one Ghulam Jan alias Jahan Khan was his unmarried paternal uncle, who was residing with the family of the plaintiff and on account of services rendered by the latter, his uncle for love and affection on 30.01.2004 in presence of Zafar Nawaz Khan and Gull Nawaz Khan made declaration of gift in his favour, who accepted it and possession in lieu thereof also changed hands, therefore, the respondents/ defendants being tenants kept on paying share of produce to the plaintiff, but afterwards stopped to pay it and managed to transfer the disputed area in their favour through inheritance mutations No.6512 dated 11.03.2006 and 6002 dated 30.10.2009 while showing that said Jehan Khan died, whereas he was still alive. The suit was contested by the respondents alleging that oral gift was never pronounced by the alleged donor, what to talk that it was accepted by the plaintiff/donee. It was also pleaded that latter was not inducted into possession against any transaction. It was further asserted by the defendants that after the demise of predecessor, the inheritance mutations were correctly attested in favour of his descendants including the plaintiff, which was never agitated by him in the Revenue Forum. After due trial, while appreciating the available evidence examined on behalf of the parties concerned, the suit and appeal of the petitioner were dismissed, as such, instant civil revision was preferred to call in question its unanimous judgments.
2. 2(sic). Arguments heard and record scanned.
3. 4(sic). This Court is fully cognizant of the fact that oral gift can be made by a Muslim, but such transaction is required to be proved through high standard evidence. No doubt, essential details with regard to venue, time, date and names of the witnesses to prove when, where and before whom the declaration of oral gift was made, specifically detailed in the plaint, but plaintiff (PW1) not only failed to mention the date of said event in his statement-in-chief, rather he failed to recall his memory when specifically asked during cross-examination.
4. Moreover, it was not deposed that offer so extended was ever accepted by him/plaintiff. In such situation, the latter failed to establish one of the basic ingredients of his purported transaction. The other damaging feature was that the alleged fact being purely an event involving future obligation could only be proved by examination of at least two witnesses as required by scheme of law, but despite nominating said number of persons before whom it affected, one out of them was deliberately withheld and only single witness in corroboration was produced, which was not enough to comply with mandatory requirement of law. The sole supporting witness (PW2) not only gave the different time of the transaction, which was disclosed in the contents of the plaint, rather he also admitted that possession was not delivered to the donee. In such situation, the petitioner badly failed to prove his alleged transaction, as such suit was rightly dismissed by the Courts below while deciding all the issues involved therein in true perspective. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or irregularity, non-reading or misreading of evidence besides any jurisdictional defect to call for interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the scope whereof is restricted only to correct the errors, of law and facts, if are found to have been committed by the Courts below in the discharge of its judicial functions. The petitioner dragged the respondents into frivolous litigation for ulterior motives, who also wasted precious time of the Courts and cannot be let free without burdening heavy cost, hence civil revision is dismissed with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the respondents.