1. ' This petition in revision was against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge- I, Chiniot dated 7-5-1994 by which the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court were set aside and the suit instituted by plaintiff-Yaqoob for cancellation of registered gift-deed-in respect of the land in dispute was decreed in his favour. The facts giving rise to it briefly set out are: Ali son of Chakar owned 50 Kanals, 13 Marlas of agricultural land in Chak No 152 GB of Tehsil Chiniot. It was his total holding. He had one son namely Yaqoob and four daughters namely Mst. Moondan, Mst.
2. Fateh Bibi, Mst. Nooran and Mst. Fatima. By a deed executed and registered on 27-4-1978, he was shown to have donated his entire holding in favour of his daughter Mst. Moondan. Gift deed was implemented in Revenue Records by attestation of Mutation No, 363 on 8-11-1979. Mst. Moondan gave -a general power of attorney on 13-10-1984 to her husband Ahmad Yar son of Raja. Acting on the power of attorney given to him by his wife, he gifted the land-in-dispute in favour of his sons namely Zafar Iqbal and Mazhar Iqbal in equal shares. Both the donees were minor. They were kids of few years ages. Mst. Moondan, Ahmad Yar and the donees from Mst. Moondan were defendants Nos.1 to 4 in the suit instituted by Yaqoob. Mst. Fateh Bibi, Mst. Nooran and Mst. Fatima were respectively defendants Nos.5 to 7 in the suit. All son of Chakar was dead. His date of death was not available on present record. In the suit instituted by Yaqoob on 19-10-1985, All son of Chakar was shown to have expired five/six years before.
3. ' Yaqoob as plaintiff brought a civil suit for declaration to the effect that he was in possession of the land in dispute as a co-sharer of it and, registered gift-deed dated 27-4-1978 as well as the subsequent registered gift deed dated 22-10-1984 on its basis in favour of defendants Nos.3 to 4 by defendant No,1 were null and void and did not bind his interest in the land in suit. Main burden of the plaint was That Ali son of Chakar had not gifted his land to Mst. Moondan in his lifetime and that the registered gift deed was a fabricated transaction. It was asserted that the factum of gift was discovered a few days before the institution of the civil suit by him. Defendants Nos.1 to 4 and 7 supported the original gift deed dated 27-4-1978 by Ali son of Chakar in favour of Mst. Moondan and, consequently, the gift of land in dispute by her to her sons. Defendants Nos.5 and 6 did not contest the suit. Pleadings gave rise to as many as nine issues for determination. These have been correctly reproduced in the respective judgments of the lower Courts and need not be repeated in the judgment of this Court for avoiding burdening of it. After. Settlement of issues, parties gave evidence in support of their respective versions. Plaintiff himself appeared in support of his case as P.W.1 and tendered in evidence copies of five documents marked Exhs. P-1 to Exhs. P-5. These shall be referred to later as and when necessary. In .Rebuttal?Falek Sher D.W.1, Atta Muhammad D.W.2 and Ahmad Yar co-dkendant, special attorney and husband of Mst. Moondan D.W.3 gave evidence...Upon analysis of the evidence produced at the trial, the trial Court held that the valid gift of land-in-dispute was proved to have been made by Ali son of Chakar in favour of his daughter Mst. Moondan, vide registered gift deed Exh. P-1 and, consequently, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff, learned Additional District Judge on re-appraisal of the record disagreed with the assessm ent of it by the learned Trial Court; set aside its judgment and decreed the suit for setting aside of the registered gift deed Exh. P-1 on account of its voluntary execution having not been-proved satisfactorily. The result was that the gift deed was annulled and the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the suit land in capacity of a co-sharer. Aggrieved of this decision, donees of the -land from Mst. Moondan namely Zafar Iqbal and Mazhar Iqbal sons of Ahmad Yar instituted a revision petition in this Court. Plaintiff alongwith other defendants in the suit were impleaded as respondents in the Civil revision. It may be noticed that in the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, Zafar Iqbal and Mazhar Iqbal were shown as minors and their father Ahmad Yar had acted as their guardian ad-litem. Instant Civil revision was filed by them without the aid of guardian ad-litem. Civil revision gave no indication as to when they had attained majority.
4. ' Material question for decision in the civil revision was whether All son of Chakar had gifted his land in favour of his daughter Mst. Moondan vide a deed registered on 27-4-1978. Lower Courts gave conflicting conclusions on it. Donor was an old and aged person. He was illiterate. Onus to prove execution of the gift-deed by him and its valid registration at his instance lay upon the donee. She was shown present before the scribe of the gift deed at the time of its execution and hand thumb marked it. She also attended registration proceedings before the Sub-Registrar and was marked present in the endorsement on the sale-deed. Strangely, she did not appear in the witness box to depose about voluntary execution of the gift-deed by her father and its registration at his instance.
5. Her husband and Mukhtar-e-Aam appeared on her behalf. He professed his presence at-the time of execution and registration of the sale-deed but it did not sustain his presence. Therefore, his evidence was not reliable. Even otherwise, he was an interested party witness. Neither stamp- vendor who had sold the stamps on which the gift was scribed appeared in the evidence nor the scribe who wrote out the deed entered the witness box to give evidence. None from the village where the land was situated or the place of the donor was associated with the execution and registration of the gift-deed. Even Lambardar of the village where the land was situated was excluded from it. Two witnesses who allegedly witnessed the execution and registration of the gift- deed in favour of Mst. Moondan hailed from a far-off different village. On proper scan, their testimony was disbelieved in the Court below-and in my view rightly for the reasons recorded in its judgment. No other relation of the donor accompanied him. Neither his son nor any of his other daughters. They showed total ignorance of the donation. Furthermore, it appeared to be an unnatural transaction also. Donor had a son and four daughters alive. There was no good reason for him to prefer a daughter to his sole son and other three daughters. All three were dear to him and there was no reliable material to show that he was unhappy or annoyed with his son and other three daughters for excluding them from inheritance of his land. Therefore, transaction was against ordinary human conduct also. Plaintiff was in possession of the land in the lifetimte of his father. He held its possession even after his death also. Registration of a deed was not equivalent to proof of its execution. In case of denial of execution, the beneficiary of the deed was obliged to prove its voluntary execution. On record, defendant No,1 had failed to discharge the burden of proof of execution of the gift-deed lying upon her. True, there were divergent findings of the lower Courts on question of gift. Yet, the finding of the lower appellate Court which received strength from the record was binding in revision.
6. ' As a result of the above. Civil revision has little merit in it. It was concluded by a proper finding on a question of- fact in the lower Court. Therefore, it is dismissed in limine.