1. Material point for decision in the civil revision was whether Taj Din had made a gift of his land measuring 26 Kanals, 2 Marlas situated at Mauza Lakhan-key of Tehsil Pasrur in favour of Riasat Ali petitioner through a gift --deed executed on 12-1-1978 and registered on 24-1-1978. The trial Court had found in favour of the gift but the lower appellate Court disagreed with it and held that it was not proved.
2. Material facts for the decision of this revision-petition in brief are:--Taj Din owned 153 Kanals, 12 Marlas of agricultural land at Mauza Lakhan--key of Tehsil Pasrur in District Sialkot. He was issueless. Ghulam Muhammad and Sultan were his real brothers. Ghulam Muhammad had predeceased him but Sultan survived him. He had two sisters. They were Mst. Sardar Bibi and Mst.
3. Hussain Bibi. Mst. Hussain Bibi died after decease of Taj Din. She breathed her last, on 1-11-1980. She was survived by three sons and four daughters. They were plaintiffs Nos.2 to 8 in the civil suit which gave rise to this civil revision.
4. Out of his total land, Taj Din gifted 127 Kanals, 10 Marlas in favour of Sultan vide a gift deed executed on 12-1-1978 and registered on 24-1-1978. Remainder 26 Kanals, 2 Marlas were gifted by him through a separate gift-- deed executed on 12-1-1978 to Riasat Ali, son of aforesaid Sultan. He was the sole defendant in the suit. Gift-deed was presented for registration on 12-1-1978. However, it was finally registered on 24-1-1978 by the Sub-- Registrar.
5. On 25-2-1981, Mst. Sardar Bibi alongwith sons and daughters of deceased Mst. Hussain Bibi instituted a civil suit against Riasat Ali defendant for invalidating of the gift-deed in his favour. It was asserted that gift was invalid on account of restrictions on powers of disposition of the donor under Customary Laws; it violated provisions in the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972; it was product of fraud and misrepresentation, inasmuch as, the donor did not make a voluntary donation of his land and because of his serious illness, he was wholly incapable of making it either. Also, possession of the gifted land was not delivered. Therefore, the gift was incomplete under Muslim Law.
6. Upon being served in the suit, defendant appeared and submitted his written statement. By it, he controverted the averments in the plaint for upholding of a valid gift of the land in dispute in his favour.
7. In the first instance, on 27-10-1983, the suit was dismissed without trial as having abated in terms of section 2-A inserted in Punjab Act, V of 1962 by Punjab Ordinance, XIII of 1983. This decision of the trial Court was reversed, on 20-10-1985 in appeal by learned District Judge, Sialkot who remitted the suit for its trial on other pleas taken in the plaint for invalidation of the gift---deed.
8. On 13-1-1986, the trial Court settled following issues for determination:--
(1) Whether, the gift in dispute is result of frand? OPP.
(2) Whether the possession was not delivered to the donee at the time of alleged gift. If so, its effect? OPP.
(3) Whether the defendant is entitled to receive special costs? OPD.
(4) Relief.
9. Plaintiffs first opened their case and gave evidence of two P.Ws. and one of them, namely, Karamat Ali appeared as a patty-witness in support of the plaint-case. In addition, an extract from death- register pertaining to Taj Din Exh.P.l, certified copy of the gift-deed Exh.P.2, and certified copy of the statement of Dr.Gul Nawaz, M.O. recorded in the other suit Exh.P.3 were produced and evidence was closed. In rebuttal, defendant Riasat Ali gave evidence of his real brother Muhammad Din; D.W.l, Allah Ditta D.W.2 and himself appeared as D.W.3 in support of his case and produced the deed- writer Muhammad Yaqoob as D.W.4 to prove execution of the original gift-deed Exh.D.1.
10. Upon review of the evidence led in the case, trial Court found that valid gift was made and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. In appeal, the plaintiffs met with success with the consequence that gift was annulled and they were allowed their share in the gifted land. As observed in the beginnings basic point for decision in the revision petition was, whether Taj Din made a gift of his land to Riasat Ali; executed a deed for it on 12-1=1978; presented it for registration on the same day; admitted its execution before the Sub-Registrar and thumb-marked it in his presence.
11. Upon scrutiny of original records and hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, it was clear that gift of the land in dispute by Taj Din to Riasat Ali was not adequately established. At the, time of his decease Taj Din was an old man of 70. He was admitted to the hospital, on 11-1-1978. On the following day, he was shown to have visited Pasrur for purchasing of stamp-papers for scribing of a gift of his land measuring 26 Kanals, 2 Marlas on it in favour of Riasat Ali. Stamp-papers worth Rs.750 were purchased from the stamp--vendor, on 12-1-1978. Gift-deed was written on the same day, at Pasrur by a deed-writer. It was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Pasrur at 3/4.00 p.m. by Taj Din. He was identified by Sher Muhammad Lambardar of Sarakpur and Muhammad Din.
12. Execution of the gift-deed was witnessed by Sher Muhammad Lambardar, Muhammad Din son of Sultan Ali, Nazira son of Sultan Ahmad and Rashida, son of Sultan Ahmad. Muhammad Din, Nazira and Rashida hailed from Lakhan-key. Taj Din thumb-marked the gift-deed. At the time of the presentation of the gift-deed before the Sub-Registrar, Taj Din (donor), Riasat Ali (donee) Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Din had appeared. Riasat Ali and Muhammad Din gave their signatures to the gift-deed. Taj Din and Sher Muhammad had thumb-marked it. It may be observed that though the endorsements on the gift-deed were completed on 12-1-1978, but the gift-deed was actually registered in the registration-book on 24-1-1978. Original gift-deed was Exh.D.l on the file of the trial Court. Its certified copy was Exh.P.2. Taj Din was dead. Plaintiffs' case was that he died on 13-1-1978. An extract from register of deaths maintained in the office of Union Council supported it.. Defendant disputed the date of death of Taj Din on 13-1-1978. His case was that he died on 29-1-1978, after he was discharged from the hospital. However, there was no proof of it in writing that Taj Din had died on 29-1-1978. Plaintiffs denied execution of the gift-deed by Taj Din in favour of Riasat Ali. They pleaded fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation by the defendant in this behalf. Their case was that Taj Din was admitted in the hospital on 11-1-1978 and was not in a fit frame of mind to execute a deed of gift in favour of defendant. Since the execution of gift-deed by Taj . Din was denied by the plaintiffs, onus to prove its voluntary execution by Taj Din heavily rested upon the defendant. A real brother of the defendant was a marginal witness to the execution of the gift-deed. He had also identified the donor before the Sub-Registrar. He appeared as D.W.1. He did not support him. He deposed that at the time of execution of gift-deed Exh.D.l, Taj Din was in his senses, but when he appeared before the Sub-Registrar, he had lost them. He further deposed that Sub-Registrar had declined to register the gift--deed on 12-1-1978 because Taj Din donor was not in his senses. The witness also deposed that Taj Din died on 13-1-1978. The other identifying witness, namely, Sher Muhammad did not appear at the trial in support of execution of the gift-deed by Taj Din and his identification by him before the Sub-Registrar. Defendant deposed that he was dead at the time of recording of evidence in the trial Court. However there was no proof of it on record. Testimony of D.W.2 was immaterial. He was not a witness to the execution or registration of the gift-deed. Muhammad Yaqoob, deed-writer appearing as D.W.4 deposed that he had scribed gift-deed Exh.D.l at behest of Taj Din. He stated that he had written the gift-deed, read out it to Taj Din, who admitted it correct and put his thumb-impressions on it. In cross- examination, the witness deposed that he was unaware, whether Taj Din was accompanied by Muhammad Din and Sher Muhammad. He further admitted that Taj Din was not personally known to him and he had not seen his identity card. Defendant himself stepped in the witness-box as D.W.3 and gave evidence to prove execution of the gift---deed by Taj Din. He deposed that Taj Din remained admitted in the hospital till 20-1-1978 and died after 8 or 9 days in the village. As far the plaintiffs' evidence, it consisted of testimony of two P.Ws. and that of one of the plaintiffs. Their evidence was that Taj Din was admitted to the Hospital and was not in a position to make a gift of his land to Riasat Ali. The stamp-vendor who had sold the stamp-papers was not produced. Scribe of the gift-deed was not acquainted with the donor. Muhammad Din who was real brother of the donee and a marginal witness to the gift-deed did not materially support the voluntary execution of the gift-deed by Taj Din. Other marginal witness of the gift-deed, namely, Sher Muhammad Lambardar was not produced. Reason for it was his death. However, no sound proof of his death at the relevant time was forthcoming on record. Taj Din belonged to Lakhan-key. The donee also belonged to Lakhan-key. Except for Muhammad Din, no person from village Lakhan-key accompanied Taj Din to Pasrur for execution of the gift-deed by him in favour of Riasat Ali. Even Muhammad Din did not support the donee's case. Taj Din was admitted to Hospital. There was no sound evidence in support of his leaving the hospital on 12-1-1978 for writing of a gift-deed in favour of Riasat Ali. Bare word of Riasat Ali on it was insufficient. It shall be significant to observe that on the same day, at the same place and is similar circumstances. Taj Din was shown to have donated his 127 Kanals, 10 Marlas of land in favour of Sultan father of Riasat Ali. That gift was also challenged by the plaintiffs in the Civil Court. The trial Court annulled the gift and decreed the suit.
13. In appeal, decision was maintained by the learned Additional District Judge. A further revision filed in this Court (Civil Revision No.1286 of 1990) was dismissed by me, on 25-10-1993. Net result of it was that the gift of land in favour of Sultan was also adjudged invalid. Execution of the gift-deed by Taj Din in favour of Riasat Ali was not free from serious doubts. Evidence led in proof of gift was far from being satisfactory. It was neither convincing nor credible. There was a sharp dispute between the parties on the date of actual death of Taj Din. Plaintiffs said, he died on 13-1-1978. Defendant prolonged it to 29-1-1978. Plaintiffs produced an extract from death-register. Defendant gave no evidence in writing. Dispute on date of actual death apart, sound proof in support of a valid gift of land by Taj Din to Riasat Ali was not forthcoming on the present record. Evidence led in this behalf by the defendant was not impressive. In my view, the lower appellate Court rightly found that gift of the land in dispute was not proved. I, therefore, agree with its decision and dismiss the civil revision in limine. Records be returned.