1. ' This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-12-1988 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge (East) Karachi whereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 10-2-1988 and decree 11-2-1988 passed by the IInd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that predecessorsin-interest of respondent No,1 and (i) to (vii) namely Mst. Laila Bai filed Suit No,814 of 1985 for partition and separate possession and for declaration, mandatory injunction, perpetual injunction and rendition of accounts against the petitioners and other persons in the Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East. The case as set out in the plaint was that Mst. Laila Bai and defendants 1 to 7 belong to Shia Ismailia Muslim community and are governed by Shia Muhammadan Law of inheritance. The defendants Nos.1 to 3 are real brothers of Plaintiff while defendants Nos.4 to 7 are sons and daughters of defendant No,1 and L.Rs, of deceased Mst. Laila Bai averred in the plaint that late Hussain Muhammad Keswa ni the father of plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 3 was the sole owner of immovable property i,e. Plot of land bearing No,444, Sheet Garden East, Nasarwanjee Road, Karachi. The case of Plaintiff as set out in the plaint was that Hussain Muhammad Keswani died at Karachi on 19-6-1966 leaving the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 3 as his sole legal heirs who inherited the suit property to the extent of following undivided shares: A. Share of Plaintiff 1/7 undivided share. B. Share of defendant No,1, 2/7th -do- C. Share of defendant No,2, 2/7th -do- D. Share of defendant No,3, 2/7th -do- ' The further case of the plaintiff was that she continued to be co-owner of the suit property to the extent of her share which remained in possession of defendants Nos.1 to 3 but defendants did not render any account to her. She served a notice. The defendants sent a reply wherein they denied her claim and claimed the entire property to be belonging to him and his wife. In these circumstances she filed the above suit. The defendants 1 to 7 filed their joint written statement. The defendants pleaded that late Hussain Mohammad Keswani gifted the suit property to defendants 1 to 3 on 1-1-1963. The case of the defendants as set out in the written statement was that half share was gifted to defendant No,1 and the remaining half share was gifted to defendant Nos.2 and 3 in equal shares. The defendants pleaded in the written statement that the plot was duly mutated after due enquiry vide order dated 26-3-1963. It is further case of the defendants that the plot was forfeited by Government vide D.C's letter dated 12-1967 but the same was restored on 13-5-1968 on payment of Rs,1,000 by defendant No,1. It is the further case of the defendants that defendants Nos.2 and 3 transferred their shares in favour of defendant No,1 and his wife Mst. Kolsoom Bai on receipt of consideration of Rs,70,000 and executed sale-deed dated 7-10-1968 registered on 8-10- 1968. The names of defendant No,1 and his wife Mst. Kolsoom Bai were mutated in the record of rights vide order dated 12-3-1970. The defendants Nos.2 and 3 averred that their father made a valid gift, in their favour in equal shares. They pleaded that they were also deprived of their shares by the defendant No,1. The trial Court framed appropriate issues. The Plaintiff died and her heirs were brought on the reocrd. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
3. ' The trial Court on assessm ent of evidence decided issues Nos.1, 4 and 9 in the affirmative, issues Nos.2, 5, 6 and 10 in the negative and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 10-2-1988. The Senior Civil Judge found that late Hussain gifted the property in suit to defendants 1 to 3. He found that defendants 2 and 3 sold their respective shares to defendant No,1 and one Mst. Kalsoom Bai. In this view of the matter, the suit was dismissed.
4. ' The legal heirs of the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No,50 of 1988. The original defendants Nos.2 and 3, namely Sultan Ali and Wali Muhammad also filed Civil Appeal No,45 of 1988. Both the appeals were heard by the 1st Additional District Judge, (East), Karachi.
5. ' The learned Additional District Judge on re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence dismissed both the appeals vide Judgment dated 22-12-1988.
6. ' The learned Additional District Judge found that the mutation was made in the record which is not disputed. The genuineness of such entry (Ext.12) was not challenged. The original plaintiff alleged that the entry was fraudulently made. Bundhali the legal heir of original appeared in the witness box and had not said a single word in his deposition that it was fraudulently made. The original defendants 2 and 3 and the present petitioners had not denied factum of gift but deposed that the property was equally gifted to them. They failed to establish that the property in suit was gifted in equal shares to them. In this view of the matter the learned Additional District Judge held that Late Hussain Mohammad Keswa ni made gift in favour of Akbar Ali 1/2 share, Wali Muhammad 1/4th share and Sultan Ali 1/4th share. He held that the petitioners sold their shares to Akbar All and his wife Kalsoom Bai.
7. ' The Additional District Judge decided the appeals vide judgment 22-12-1989.
8. ' The petitioners being aggrieved by this judgment dated 22-12-1988 have filed the present revision.
9. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada in support of the revision petition.
10. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with care and have gone through the impugned judgment and the documents annexed to the memo of revision.
11. The controversy between the parties relates to a question of fact, Mst. Laila Bai claimed share in the property in suit. The Petitioners admitted the gift but averred that the gift was made between them and Akbar Ali in equal shares. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court after applying their conscious mind to the relevant oral as well as documentary evidence have concurrently found that late Hussain A Muhammad Keswani gifted the suit property in favour of Akbar Ali 1/2 share and the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 in 1/4th share. The Courts below have also found that the petitioners have sold their shares to Akbar Ali and Mst. Kalsoom Bai. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Courts below. I do not see any misreading or non-reading of the evidence on record. The other submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the impugned judgment and decree. The Courts below have not committed any error of law or procedure. The impugned judgments are not based on an improper rejection of material evidence or misconstruction of documents or an inference not warranted by oral and documentary evidence. I am satisfied that the concurrent findings of Courts below on issues are fully warranted by the facts on which the same are based.
12. ' In the result, there is no case found to have been made out for interference with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and Civil Revisions consequently is dismissed in limine.
13. ' The above are the reasons for the short order dated 22-5-1989 dismissing the revision petition in limine on conclusion of the arguments.