ALI BAIG, J.---The revision petition bearing No.42 of 2018, filed by the petitioner namely Muhammad Hussain arises from the judgment/decree dated 7-7-2018 passed by the learned District Judge Skardu, whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has partially accepted, the civil first appeal of the present respo ndent No.1/plaintif f and has set aside the judgment/decree dated 30-4-2016, passed by the learned trial court.
2. The brief facts forming the back-ground of the instant civil revision petition are that the present respondent No. 1/plaintif f filed a declaratory suit against the present petitioner/defendant in the trial court claiming that he was owner of the disputed property falling under khawat No.103 khasra No.1556 situated at Gamba Skardu. He had gifted the suit land to his son-in-law namely Hassan/defendant No.1 only to the extent of khawat No.103 through registered gift deed No.68/78 on the condition of providing his maintenance by the defendant No.1 namely Hassan, but he declined to provide maintenance to him and on the intervention of the elders he undertook that he will provide the settled commodities, but he failed to comply with his undertaking. The plaintif f/present respondent No.1 when obtained the copies of the revenue record, it was revealed that the defendant No.1 instead of khasra No.103 had fraudulently transferred all his landed property through mutation No.922 in his name. The plaintif f has prayed for the cancellation of registered gift deed bearing No.68/ 78/mutations No.922 and 2133 as relief.
3. Since the suit property was sold-out by the defendant No.1 to one Muhammad Hussain present petitioner , so he was later on arrayed as defendant No.3 in the suit as such' he is contesting the case.
4. The defendant No.1 was proceeded ex-parte as he did not turn-up before the learned trial court and defendant No.2 was' also struck-of f under Order I, rule 10(2) C.P.C. declaring him un-necessary party by the learned trial court. Now, the case is virtually against defendant 'No.3/present petitioner as he had purchased the suit land from the defendant No.l.
5. The present petitioner/defendant No.3 contested the suit by way of filing of his written statement in the learned trial court, wherein he has raised certain legal objections and has also repudiated the claim averments of plaint.
6. Out of divergent pleading of parties, the learned trial court has framed as many as 12 issues including issue of relief. After framing of issues, the parties produced their respective oral and documentary evidence in the learned trial court.
7. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and evaluating the evidence of the parties has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the suit of the plaintif fs is barred by law of limitation and other grounds vide the judgment/decree dated 30-4-2016.
8. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court, the present respondent No.1/plaintif f had filed civil first appeal in the court of the learned District Judge, Skardu which was allowed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 7-7-2018, hence this revision petition.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned Ist Appellate Court is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence of the parties and the learned first appellate court has also failed to apply its judicious mind while passing the impugned judgment/decree hence the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the suit of the respondent No. 1/plaintif f is, hopelessly time barred as gift deed was executed on 21-01-1978, the disputed mutation was sanctioned/ attested on 18-02-1981, suit bearing No.119/89 was filed by the present next friend of the plaintif f Mst. Khatoon against her father/plaintif f on 18-9-1989, and suit was decided on 07-6-1992. The present suit was filed on 18-3-2002, after lapse of more than 24 years of the execution of gilt deed and attestation of mutat ion. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the suit of the plaintif f is hit by principle of res judicata under section 11 of C.P.C. as Mst. Khatoon (daughter of Kazim)/plaintif f had filed civil suit bearing No.119/89, against her father (Kazim) and defendant No.1 on the same cause of action challenging the gift deed No.68/89 and mutation No.922 and the said suit was dismissed on merit by the learned trial court on 07-6-1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.3 further argued that the plaintif f is estopped by his condu ct and admission to file the suit against the petitioner/defendant No.3 as the plaintif f vide para No.5 of the written statement to the suit No.119/89 had admitted regarding execution of the impugned gift deed No.68/889 and mutation No.922. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the plaintif f remained under protection and care of the defendant No.1 namely Hasan for about 25 years, but he never agitated regarding deprivation of his total landed property , therefore, by accepting this revision petition, the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court may be set aside and the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court may be restored.
10. Conversely , the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintif f controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the respondent No. 1/plaintif f had gifted the suit property to the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 under khewat No.103, but the defendant No.1 has fraudulently transferred the entire landed property of the plaintif f in his name vide disputed mutation No.922 attested on 08-2-1981, therefore, the learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent No.1/plaintif f vide the impugned judgment/decree which may be maintained.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record with their able assistance.
12. Admittedly , the suit of the respondent No. 1/plaintif f is hopelessly time barred on the following grounds/ reasons:-
(a) Gift deed Exh.P/1 was admittedly executed on 21-01-1978.
(b) Mutation No.922 Exh.P/2 was sanctioned/ attested on 18.02.1981.
Previous suit filed by Mst. Khatoon against plaintif f and defendant No.2 was filed on 18-9-1989, and it was decided on 07-6-1992 by the learned trial court. Whereas, limitation for filing of declaratory suit is provided in Article 120 of Limitation Act which is six years, hence the suit of the plaintif f is time barred by about 24 years.
13. Moreover , the suit of the respondent No. 1/plaintif f is hit by principle of estopple as the plaintif f vide para No.5 of his written statement to the suit No.119/89 had categorically admitted the execution and genuineness of the impugned gift deed Exh.P/1 and mutation No.922 Exh.P/2, thus, the plaintif f cannot resile from his previous statement as per Article 1 14 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 .
14. Furthermore, the suit of the respondent No.1/ plaintif f is also hit by the doctrine of Res judicata under Section 11 C.P.C. as Mst. Khatoon (the daughter of Kazim) respondent No. 1/plaintif f had filed a suit No.119/89 on 18-9- 1989, against her father/plaintif f and the defendant No.1 on the same cause of action challenging the gift deed Exh.P/1 and mutation No.922 Exh.P/2 and cancellation of aforesaid documents. The said suit of Mst. Khatoon was dismissed on merit by the learned trial court on 07-6-1992, on the ground that plaintif f namely Kazim had un- equivocally admitted the authenticity of the aforesaid documents i.e. gift deed Exh.P/1 and mutation No.922 Exh.P/2, and per Islamic. Law, an owner can dispose of his property during his life time. The aforesaid judgment of learned trial court has attained finality as the said judgment of the learned trial court has not been challenged before any higher judicial forum by the parties.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned District Judge, Skardu having suffered from legal and factual infirmity cannot sustain. Consequently , this revisi on petition is accepted and the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court dated 07-7-2018 is set aside. Resultantly , the judgment/decree dated 30-4-2016 passed by the learned trial court is upheld/restored. Parties to bear their respective costs. File.