' The instant Appeal and appeal No, 856 of 1967 arising out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), dated the 15th July, 1967, will be disposed of by this judgment. One Amir, son of Mir, Khokhar by caste, resident of Chak No, 374 G.B., Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, was owner of half square of land entered in Killas Nos. 1 to 10, 11/1 to 15/1 of square No, 41/16, situate in the area of the said Chak No, 374-G.B and Wali Muhammad, the deceased appellant, cultivated it as tenant. On the 3rd January, 1956, Amir executed and got registered the sale-deed, Exh. D.5, whereby he conveyed to Wali Muhammad 21 Kanals 13! Marlas of land comprising the entire Killas Nos. 4 and 5 and half of Killa No, 6; Rs, 3,000 were mentioned as sale price in the deed. On the 22nd November, 1956, Amir executed the mortgage deed, Exh. D.2, mortgaging with possession till Rabi 1967, 33 Kanals 7 Marlas of land out of Killas Nos. 3,6,7,8, 14/1 and 15/1 in favour of Wali Muhammad, the mortgage money being Rs, 6,000. The deed was registered the same day. On the 23rd January, 1957, Amir executed, the registered sale-deed, Exh.
D.1, transferring 17 Kanals 16 Marlas of land forming part of Killas Nos. 1 and 2 to Wall Muhammad for the stated sale price of Rs,4,000. Amir expired in February, 1957.
2. Sheru (respondent 1), father's brother's son, Mst. Jawai (respondent 2), Mst. Ghulam. Fatima (respondent 3) and Mst. Khurshid (respondent 4), daughters, of the late Amir, instituted suit in the civil Court of Lyallpur on the 12th March, 1958, for possession of the land which formed subject- matter of the above referred alienations of sales and mortgage. Apart from Wali Muhammad they impleaded Mst. Daulan (respondent 6) and Mst. Halima alias Zubaida (respondent 5) as defendants in the suit. They gave a lie to the claim of Mst. Daulan that she was the widow and to that of Mst. Halima alias Zubaida that she was the daughter of Amir. They maintained that Mst.
Daulan had never been the legally wedded wife of Amir and further that in any case Mst. Halima alias Zubaida was not the legitimate daughter of Amir.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 pleaded that Amir had, at the far end of his life, become old, ill and feeble- minded. They averred that Wali Muhammad, appellant, had cultivated illicit relationship with Mst.
Daulan during the life time of Amii who due to old age and illness, had lost alertness of mind, become incapable of looking after his interests and gone completely under the influence and control of the appellants and respondents 5 and 6. They averred that taking advantage of his old age, illness and fraility the appellant and respondents 5 and 6 had threatened him that if he would not transfer his land to the appellant for the benefit of respondents 5 and 6 they would not give him any share of the income of the -land, would not take care of him and thus he would be left in the lurch to die. They contended that by influencing him with the threat and jtaking undue advantage of old age, illness, feeble-mindedness and we'kness the sale and mortgage deeds were got executed by him without payment of any consideration. They pointed out that the statement appearing in the mortgage deed, Exh. D.2, that Amir had earlier received from Wali Muhammad Rs, 4,100 for meeting the expenses of the marriages of his daughters was patently false because his daughters, respondents 2 to 4, had been married long before and further that Nur Muhammad Lambardar, who was siding with the appellant and respondents 5 and 6, had made arrangement for payment of the sale price before the Registrar at the time of registeraticn of the sale-deed, Exh.
D.1, which amount had afterwards been taken back from Amir.
4. In their joint written statement the appellant and respondents 5 and 6 controverted the allegations of respondents 1 to 4 and contended that full consideration had been paid to Amir when the appellant had purchased and taken on mortgage land from him. Respondent 6 asserted herself to be the legally wedded wife of Amir and respondent 5 gave herself out to be his daughter.
Existence of illicit intimacy between the appellant and respondent 6 was vehemently denied.
5. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Lyallpur, formed the view that the alienations of sales and mortgage had taken place for consideration and without the exercise of undue influence by the appellant and respondents 5 and 6 upon Amir. On the basis of the admissions apparent in the evidence produced by respondents 1 to 4 he concluded that Mst. Daulan was the wife and Mst.
Halima alias Zubaida the daughter of Amir. By his judgment of the 8th June, 1966, he dismissed the suit of respondents 1 to 4. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, concurred in the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge touching relationship of respondents 5 and 6 with Amir yet he held that while effecting the alienations of sales and mortgage Amir Ali had been completely under the influence, guidance and control of Wall Muhammad and Mst. Daulan and that he had made the alienations without any consideration. 'Therefore, accepting the appeal of respondents 1 to 4 he passed a decree for possession of 17/24th share of the land in dispute in their favour; suit in respect of the remaining portion of the disputed land was dismissed.
6. By means of the present appeal Wali Muhammad challenged the validity of the finding of the learned Additional District Judge qua the alienations having been brought out under due influence and without consideration. In Appeal No, 856 of 1967 respondents 1 to 4 questioned the correctness of the finding of the learned Courts below that Mst. Daulan was the wife and Mst. Halima alias Zabaida daughter of Amir. During the pendency of the appeals Wali Muhammad and Sheru died and their legal representatives were brought on the record.
7. Respondents 2 to 4 compromised the dispute with the legal representatives of Wali Muhammad, the deceased appellant. They filed the compromise deed and made statements before this Court on the 9th June, 1976, that they would not claim any interest in the land in dispute sold by their father, Amir, in favour of Wali Muhammad. The compromise was certified by this Court.
8. It may be mentioned that the mortgage to which 33 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land in dispute had been subjected by Amir in favour of Wali Muhammad through the mortgage deed, Exh. D.2, was got redeemed by respondents 1 to 4.
9. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Court below on that point that Mst.
Daulan was the wife and Mst. Halima alias Zubaida daughter of Amir gets support from the very evidence of respondents 1 to 4. Their witnesses bore testimony to the living together of Amir and Mst. Daulan for no fewer than 20 years. Muhammad P.W.12, went to the extent of saying that Amir be got Mst. Halima from Mst. Daulan. Ahmad P.W.9, whose sister is the wife of Sheru, respondent 1, and who has been dubbed to be an interested witness by the learned trial and first appellate Court, claimed himself to be the husband of Mst. Daulan. He deposed that Mst. Daulan had lived with him as his wife for about six or seven months and thereafter Amir had abducted her. No documentary material indicating any step taken by him in respect of her alleged abduction by Amir was placed on the record to substantiate his allegations. In these circumstances, it is difficult to displace the conclusion reached by the learned Courts regarding matrimonial relationship between Amir and Mst. Daulan and filial relationship of Mst. Halima alias Zubaida with him.
10. The learned Additional District Judge has given cogent reason for holding that the alienations in question had taken place without any consideration while amir was completely under the influence an control of Wall Muhammad and Mst. Daulan. Noticing the status of Wali Muhammad, his meagre income and four daughters whom he had married, he formulated the view that it was not possible for him to raise within a year the amount of Rs, 13,000 which represents consideration for the sales and mortgage. Respondents 1 to 4 produced evidence to the effect that Nur Muhammad Lumbardar deposited an amount of Rs,3,927 as arrears of land revenue in the Tehsil office of Jaranwala on the 24th January, 1957, a day after the sale-deed, Exh. D.1, had been executed and registerd to establish that he had provided the money which was said to have been paid as sale price before the Sub-Registrar. The assertion made in the mortgage deed, Exh. D.2, that Amir had borrowed from Wali Muhammad Rs, 4,100 to meet expenses of the marriages of his daughters could not but be found to be incorrect because no mention of such a fact had been made in the previous sale deed, Exh. D.5, executed about ten months back and the daughters of Amir Wad been married more than a decade before. Amir was suffering diabetes and was fairly old, he remained admitted in hospital for months. There is evidence on the record that Wali Muhammad developed illicit relations with Mst. Daulan. Therefore, the view formed by the learned Additional District Judge that Amir was under the influence, control and guidance of Wali Muhammad and Mst. Daulan cannot be ignored. In these circumstances, the finding of fact in this behalf recorded by the Additional District Judge cannot be interfered with.
11. As respondents 2 to 4 gave up their claim in favour of the appellant in respect of the land sold by Amir to Wali Muhammad, they are not entitled to any share therein. However, they are eligible to get their due share of 7/16th of the rest of the land in dispute. Respondent 1 is entitled to his due share of 7/24th of the entire land in dispute. Accordingly, the decree under appeal is modified in the following terms. A decree for 7/24th share of the entire land in dispute is passed in favour of the legal representatives of the appellant and respondents 5 and 6 while a decree of 7/16th share of the land in dispute, excluding the land sold by Amir to Wali Muhammad vide the sale deeds, Exhs.
D-1 and D-5, is passed in favour of respondents 2 to 4 and against the legal representatives of the appellant and respondents 5 and 6; with regard to remaining land the suit of respondents 1 to 4 is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal and the other Appeal No, 856 of 1967. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.