' This petition seeks revision of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat dated the 15th July, 1975, dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the property in dispute situate in villages of Madina and Mahmda, tehsil and district Gujrat, and that the respondents had no concern therewith on the basis of any gift and that of the learned Additional District Judge, dated the 19th October, 1981, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Ali Haider Shah, petitioner, was owner of 48 kanals 14 marlas of land in dispute situate in the area of village Madina and of 7 kanals 19 marlas of land lying in the area of village Mahmda. On the 7th April, 1967 he got entered with the patwarl mutations Nos. 4192 and 1439 acknowledging having gifted away and having delivered possession of the land in question of villages Madina and Mahmda, respectively, to the respondents. It may be mentioned that. Manzur Mehdi, respondent No, 1, and Irshad Haider Hussain, minor respondent No, 2, are his sons, Liaqat Abbas and Qaiser Abbas, minor respondents Nos. 3 and, 4 are sons of his deceased son named Zulfiqar Mehdi. The mutations were sanctioned by the Assistant Collector and Tahsildar, Gujrat, on the 29th September, 1967. On the 21st December, 1967 the petitioner instituted suit for affirmation of his title to the property. He averred that he had not gifted it to the respondents and even if making of such a gift was established the same was invalid because he had not delivered possession of the property to the respondents for anyone on their behalf had accepted the gift, that the joint gift was not legally enforceable and that it violated the rights of other heirs. The respondents resisted the suit and maintained that the petitioner had made a valid and complete gift of the property in their favour. They objected to the maintainability of the suit in the declaratory form as they asserted to be in possession of the land.
2. The learned trial as well as the appellate Courts below formed the view that the petitioner had divested himself of the property in dispute by having validly gifted the same in favour of the respondents. Finding the respondents to be in possession of the property they thought -that the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for possession and a suit for mere declaration was not sustainable, accordingly they non-suited him.
3. It may be mentioned that one Muzaffar All Shah, on the basis of the power-of-attorney, Exh. D/2, executed by the petitioner in his favour, appeared before the Assistant Collector during the proceedings for the attestation of mutations of gift Nos. 4192 and 1439. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had, by means of application, Exh. D. W. 1/2, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, revoked the authority of Muzaffar Ali Shah and that, therefore, the latter could not have acted in getting the mutations finalized. In the said application the petitioner admitted his having got entered the mutations and having appointed Muzaffar Ali Shah as his attorney by means of the power-of-attorney. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the mutations on the grounds that the petitioner had, while getting the mutations entered, admitted having gifted away the property and having delivered the possession of the same to the respondents. The petitioner cannot get out of such admission. The evidence given by him consists of his bald statement. On the other hand the tenants in occupation of the land in dispute bore testimony to the fact that they had been, paying rent to the respondents. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 being minors no formal delivery of possession of the land to them was necessary. Be that as it may when the petitioner has himself admitted the delivery of possession no further evidence was needed to prove this fact. The respondent's evidence points to the acceptance of the gift by respondent 1, a major son of the petitioner.
4. The objection to the validity of the gift without division of the property in dispute as contained in section 161 of Mulla's Principles of Muhammadan Law raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted to the instant case as some of the land in dispute is a share out of joint Khata. The decisions of the learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
Therefore, they do not demand interference in revision by this Court. This petition is consequently dismissed with costs.