1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Hakim All and others, petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 23-5-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revision No, 50/89 filed by them against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 21-2-1988, was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that Ghulam Sabir deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent was owner of agricultural land measuring 366 Kanals 7 Marlas in village Rashidpur, Tehsil and District Jhang which was tenanted by the petitioners. Through gift deed dated 26-5- 1973, he gifted 200 Kanals of land in favour of the petitioners in the proportion of Hidayat petitioner No,4 one-half and Hakim Ali, Allah Ditta and Beg sons of Muhammad (petitioners 1 to 3) half share.
3. The consideration as per recital in the gift deed is that the vendees have been serving the donor for the last so many years and that they have made the land culturable without any contribution on behalf of the donor which has created love and affection in his mind for them. Ghulam Sabir donor in his lifetime filed a suit for the cancellation of the gift deed in the Civil Court alleging that he was an ignorant and infirm person not capable of looking after his property and agreed to lease out the suit land to the petitioners for a period of seven years but they fraudulently executed a gift deed instead of lease deed which is wrong, illegal and ineffective on his rights. The defendants/petitioners contested the suit. Necessary issues in the case keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded and the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Jhang who was seized of the case, vide his judgment dated 30-6- 1987, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding the gift deed as genuine and executed at the instance of Ghulam Sabir who had signed the same. However, on appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the suit decreed as per judgment dated 21-12-1988. The revision petition filed against it was also dismissed through the impugned order and hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have heard Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate, for the petitioners; Ch. M. Abdul Saleem, Advocate, for the respondent; and have perused the record of the case.
5. Admittedly valuable immovable property consisting of agricultural land with tubewell and houses was the subject-matter of gift by an ignorant person in favour of utter strangers who simply tenanted the lands of the donor for a very long time. No doubt, the gift is evidenced by registered gift deed Exh.D-1 but it is equally established that the relations of the donor were strained with his solitary son at the time of the alleged gift and he was at the mercy of the donees/petitioners, living with them and being looked after by them. The donor himself during his lifetime challenged the gift before a competent Court of law on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation giving reasons therefor in the plaint, to the effect that he intended to lease out the suit land in favour of the petitioners for a period of seven years through lease deed but the petitioners deceitfully got the deed scribed as a gift deed. Unfortunately, he died before any substantial progress could be made in the suit or his evidence in support of his plea of fraud could be recorded. His heir, respondent herein, however prosecuted the case. Since the donor had sought a declaration for declaring the gift deed as fraudulent, the burden, according to law, solely lay on the petitioners who were claiming title under the impugned deed to establish that the transfer through the gift deed was the result of conscious application of mind by the donor without any undue influence or fraud practised upon him, moreso when he was parting with substantial ownership rights in the valuable land measuring 200 Kanals which was to deprive his sole legal and Shari heir from the source of livelihood. As stated above, the donor had died during the pendency of the suit who had specifically averred in the plaint that he never transferred the suit land as gift in favour of the petitioners, and also because the presence of his son was neither alleged nor proved at the time of the execution of the gift deed, the legal heir of the deceased/donor could not be expected to lead evidence in support of the averment made in the plaint and the plea of fraud raised by the donor himself. The petitioners donees were, therefore, under heavy responsibility to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the donor parted away with his valuable property in their favour because of love and affection for them and that no fraud or undue influence had been practised upon him.
6. Strangely enough, the petitioners rest contended with the statement of Muhammad Ameer DW- 1/petition-writer, VVaryam D.W.-2 and Hidayat defendant as D.W.-3. Muhammad Ameer, petition- writer, deposed that he scribed the gift,, deed dated 26-5-1973 Exh. D-1 at the instance of Ghulam Sabir donor whom he personally knew, but under cross-examination he admitted that they were not on visiting terms with each other but knew him because he had visited him in connection with his allotment. He conceded that he did not know the attesting witnesses and that the donor at the time of the execution of the deed was 70/80 years old and a weak person. The statement of Waryam D.W.-2 is not of much help to the petitioners, inasmuch as, he simply stated that Ghulam Sabir used to live with the petitioners for the last 3() years and that he had quarrelled with his solitary son and was residing with the petitioners. He is the resident of a different village situated at a distance of one mile from the village of the donor. This evidence obviously falls short of the required standard of proof in a land dispute involving huge property. Neither the attesting witnesses were produced nor the witnesses who identified the donor before the Sub-Registrar. The learned appellate Court and the Hig:i Court keeping these facts into consideration and other circumstances of the case were justified in concluding that the alleged gift was not established and that the ownership rights in the suit land had not validly changed hands.
7. ' The learned trial Court was influenced by the admission of the son of the donor whereby he admitted the signature of Ghulam Sabir on the deed Exh.D-1. He was undeniably not present at the time of the scribing of the gift deed and could not affirmatively state whether the deed was signed or thumb-impressed by his father or not. The so-called admission can thus, be termed an erroneous one. Additionally, the petitioners have not been able to advance cogent reasons as to why the donor felt the necessity of depriving himself of valuable landed property. Merely because he was residing with the petitioners who were enjoying the usufruct of his vast agricultural land could not per se persuade him to part with his property in their favour and deprive his own son of the fruit thereof. The ground mentioned in the gift deed that the petitioners had made the land cultivable cannot be termed as a genuine consideration for the gift of the land because the petitioners had been compensated through the enhanced yield of the land. Consequently, the alleged gift was without consideration and void on this score too .
8. ' Resultantly, we do not find any legal error in the impugned judgment of the High Court and the first appellate Court and, in consequence, dismiss the petition and refuse leave to appeal.