FAZAL KARIM, J.- The petitioner's claim to the house in suit was based upon an oral gift said to have been made by his mother, Mst. Bashiran Bibi respondent, in his favour some 21 or 22 years before the suit (the date of the suit was 30, 4, 1989). The house in suit was evacuee property. It was transferred to Mst. Bashiran Bibi by the settlement authority. Mst. Bashiran Bibi had, besides her husband, Ahmad Din, respondent, four sons, Muhammad Anwar, petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, defendant, Muhammad Aslam (PW1) and Muhammad Akram (PW2) and two daughters, one of them being Mst. Shamim (DW3). Her husband, Ahmad Din, and her son, Muhammad Afzal, denied that any such gift had been made by Mst. Bashiran Bibi. The learned Civil Judge found by his judgment dated 3.1.1990 that the alleged gift was not proved and the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge were affirmed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge's judgment dated 3.9.1991. There is, thus, a concurrent finding of fact on the point. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram PWs were sons of Mst.
Bashiran Bibi and their statements in favour of the gift being against their own interest should not have been disbelieved. He also argued that Mst. Bashiran Bibi had not appeared into the witness- box and this should have raised an inference in favour of the alleged gift.
2. It is obvious that as the petitioner was a son of Mst. Bashiran Bibi, mere possession of the house was no evidence of the gift. The gift had allegedly taken place 21 or 22 years before the suit. There was no writing supporting it; nor was there any entry in the revenue or excise record, relating to the alleged gift. The learned Courts below held, and in my view rightly, that if there had been such a gift, the petitioner would have tried to have some entry made somewhere showing him as owner. It is necessary to note that the house in uit is part of a bigger building. Muhammad Akram (PW2) admitted that no partition had taken" place, so much so 'that even stair-case had remained common to the whole building. If the petitioner was able to I .Ill his brothers Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram, as witnesses, there was the evidence of his father, Ahmad Din, and his sister, Mst. Shamim, i" rebuttal. The question before the Courts below was, therefore, essentially a question of the appreciation of their evidence. The respondents also called an indipendent witness, Habib, to testify, that there had been no gift. He gave evident that in the lower portion of the house Muhammad Akram PW had opened a school and that on being asked by Ahmad Din, fie had told Muhammad Akram PW to shift the school. In these circumstances, I do not think that absence of Mrf. Bashiran Bibi from the witness- box should give rise to an inference favourable to the petitioner's case. Muhammad Akram PW gave his age as 50 and Muhammad Aslam PW gave his age as 52 and Mst. Bashiran Bibi must, therefore, have been a very old lady. I do not, therefore, think that any case for interference under Section 115 of the CPC is made out. Dismissed in limine.