1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Ashraf etc. Petitioners and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22nd May, 1988.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the disputed land belonged to their father namely Saee and after his death it legally devolved on them and that Mst. Sardaran their aunt (father's real sister) who claimed to have obtained it from the deceased by way of gift could not take possession of the same as the gift was ineffective being illegal and based on fraud. Mst. Sardaran respondent had throughout contested that her deceased brother had made the disputed gift in her favour of which subsequently she was delivered possession. The trial Court decided the suits brought against each other by the parties relating to the same subject-matter in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent, but the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court. The civil revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that the gift had been validly made and that there was ample evidence to manifest that the respondent took possession of the disputed property twelve years-after the event of gift. Thus the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore upheld the view adopted by the lower appellate Court.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the gift was opposed to law and was the result of fraud. It was also contended that the petitioners throughout had been in possession of the disputed property which also indicated non delivery of possession of the disputed land to the respondent.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel at some length. So far as the factum of the making of the gift and the delivery of possession to the respondent is concerned, the observations made on facts by the Additional District Judge as the first appellate Court are as follows: "Then there is the mutation No,3061 as per Exh. P.3. In its column No,12, there is the endorsement, dated 13-2-1972 by Ghulam Qadir Patwari about a decree passed in civil suit No,506 on 14-9-1971.
5. The decree was passed from the Court of Khan Ghulam Abbas Khan, Civil Judge, M.B. Dim. It was titled Saee son of Jallo v. Sardaran daughter of Jallo. According to the endorsement, dated 30-6- 1972, this decree was incorporated in the mutation when the donor Saee Muhammad and the donee Mst. Sardaran appeared before the Revenue Officer and they admitted the making of the gift and the possession of the subject-matter of the gift going to Mst. Sardaran. It took place at the identification of Muhammad Hayat Lambardar. The necessity for the appearance of the parties arose on account of the defect in the decree. In my opinion, this defect was that decree was showing the names of the parties wrongly. The Khalasa decree noted by the Patwari shows the name of Saee as, plaintiff and the name of Mst. Sardaran as the defendant. On the other hand, the decree being in favour of Mst. Sardaran, the names of the' parties should be Mst. Sardaran. Being plaintiff and Saee being, defendant."
6. ' Thus it is evident that the findings of fact have all been decided against the petitioners in this case, and no point of law has been raised. In our considered opinion, therefore, no case has been made out for interference and as a result this petition is dismissed.