' Land in dispute in this case was transferred by one Gulab Khan (deceased) by way of two gifts in favour of Gul Muhammad and Feroze Khan, petitioners herein, during the year 1969. The validity of these gifts, after the death of Gulab Khan, was challenged by Mst. Raj Begum, his widow, on two- fold grounds; one being that the gift is invalid for want of delivery of possession and secondly because the execution of the gifts was manipulated by practising fraud on Gulab Khan.
2. The learned Sub-Judge, Pallandri, vide its judgment and decree dated 31st of March, 1977, decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the evidence had sufficiently established that the gift- deeds were manipulated by practising fraud on Gulab Khan. After this finding the issue of possession was left undecided.
3. The petitioners went up in appeal before the District Judge, Poonch, who, vide his judgment and decree dated 2-5-1979, disallowed the appeal. It was held by the District Judge :-
(i) that the gift-deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are void as they have been executed through fraud practised on Gulab Khan deceased who is now being represented by the respondents herein;
(ii) that the gift-deeds for want of possession were void.
On second appeal, moved by the petitioners, a learned Single Judge in the High Court disallowed the appeal, on 16-6-1980, as no illegality could he traced to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below.
4. By this petition for leave to appeal the petitioners want to assail the said judgment of the High Court. Kh. Muhammad Saeed, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted-
(i) that the question as to whether Gulab Khan was undergoing the agony of death ailment at the time of the execution of the gift-deeds is a mixed question of law and fact and as such the learned Judge in the High Court misdirected himself to say that the concurrently concluded finding on this aspect needs no interference; and
(ii) that the evidence led by the parties, if critically examined, does not provide a satisfactory ground to have a conclusion that the execution of the gift-deeds is the outcome of fraud practiced on Gulab Khan.
' As against this, Kh. Shahad Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondents, maintained.
(i) that all the Courts below, including the High Court, have found that the execution of the gift- deeds was the outcome of fraud practised on Gulab Khan;
(ii) that this finding, being a finding of fact, justified no interference in High Court;
(iii) that the gift-deeds were never sought to be avoided by Mst. Raj Begum on the ground that her husband, Gulab Khan, was suffering from death illness at the time of the execution of the deeds.
Therefore, according to him, even if the question of death illness is considered to be a mixed question of fact and law, it does not provide a ground for acceptance of this petition for leave to appeal as no redress was sought on this score.
5. A finding on a question of fact is open to attack as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence. Where there is evidence to consider the decisions of the Courts; (as is the case before me) the concurrent finding cannot be interfered even if on the materials this Court may have come to a different conclusion if it had the power to substitute its own judgment.
6. The learned District Judge after a critical survey of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the fraud was practised on Gulab Khan and the possession was also not delivered to the petitioners. This finding is inferred from the evidence and it is now well-established principle of law that an inference drawn from the evidence will be considered to be a finding of fact and finding based on such inference, if it does not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, cannot be vitiated. A finding by the lower appellate Court, based on such inference, will be immune from the interference in second appeal if it is found that it is supported by evidence op record,
7. In this case I have critically examined the judgments passed by the learned District Judge and Sub-Judge. The judgments have been concluded after well-reasoned out analysis of the evidence and the finding does not suffer from misreading or non-reading of the evidence or any procedural defect which may have affected the case on merits. Appreciation of the evidence as desired by Kh.
Muhammad Saeed, Advocate, is no function of this Court. However, whether inference drawn by the evidence that Gulab Khan was suffering at the time of the execution of the gift-deeds from death illness is a mixed question of law and fact, is not material for the decision of this petition and I leave it open to be decided in case where its decision is absolutely necessary.
' For the above-stated reasons no good case is made out for acceptance of this petition for leave to appeal which stands disallowed with costs. Petition disallowed.