1. These two civil revisions by the defendants in two separate civil suits emerged from a common factual matrix and involve identical issues of fact and law for determination. Furthermore, evidence recorded in the suits was also similar. Therefore, it shall be convenient to deal with both the civil revisions together in a common judgment.
2. Mst. Saidan Bibi was a widow of old age. She was owner of 34 Kanals, 7 Marlas of agricultural land situated in village Feroze-Wattowan in Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. This land had fallen to her in inheritance from her husband. She had two sons, namely, Muhammad Haroon and Ahmad Ali and two daughters, namely, Mst. Fateh Bibi and. Mst. Rasoolan Bibi. All the four were alive. Muhammad Ashraf and Khuda Bakhsh were sons of Mst. Rasoolan Bibi. Land -owned by Mst. Saidan Bibi was part of a large area comprised in different Khatas. Her version of the case was that she intended to lease her land to her grandsons; namely, Muhammad Ashraf and Khuda Bakhsh for a period of ten years. Instead, they manoeuvred gift of her entire land to them in equal shares by two separate deeds registered on 5-2-1981 at Sheikhupura. She alleged fraud and upon discovery of it instituted two separate civil suits for cancellation of registered gift deeds attributed to her at the instance of her grandsons. She died in course of the trial of the suits on 24-2-1992 but prior to it she had recorded her own statement as P.W.I in both the suits. Upon death of Mst. Saidan Bibi, her sons and daughters were substituted on record. Her two sons and daughter Mst. Fateh Bibi opted to join as plaintiffs in each suit. Mst. Rasoolan Bibi naturally preferred to side with her sons and was impleaded as defendant No.2 in each suit.
3. Defendants submitted their defence statements. In them, the gifts by Mst: Saidan Bibi were defended. It was asserted that they were made by her and were valid under the law. A few other objections were also taken in the written statements. Those were that the plaintiff had no cause of action; suits were barred by limitation; plaintiff was estopped to sue; the suit in its existing form was not maintainable and that the gifts of land were made to compensate the donees for services rendered by them to the donor. It was also asserted that the donated land was Banjar and was improved upon by the donees, who also installed a tube-well in it and made it cultivable. Pleadings gave rise to a common set of issues in both the suits. These were:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(4) Whether the registered gift deed, dated 5-2-1981 is based on fraud and void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP
(5) Relief.
4. It may be noted that in issue No.4, number of gift deed in each suit was also given. For sake of brevity, I have omitted the serial number of gift deeds from issue No.4.
5. After settlement of issues, parties gave evidence in support of them: On-- behalf of the plaintiffs, Mst. Saidan Bibi appeared as P.W.1 and was supported by Akbar Ali P.W.2 and her daughter Mst.
6. Fateh Bibi, one of the substituted plaintiffs as P.W.3. In addition, copy of the gift deed Exh.P.1 and copy of mutation No.506 Exh.P.2 were tendered in evidence and the affirmative side of it was closed. In defence, three DWs., namely, Muhammad Ismail, Sh. Liaqat Ali Nazir Ahmad gave evidence to support execution of gift deeds by Mst. Saidan Bibi. Muhammad Ashraf and Khuda Bakhsh appeared as party witnesses in support of their cases as D.WA. In addition thereto, an extract from Khasra Girdawari was tendered in evidence-and the defence was closed.
7. Upon review of the above evidence, the trial Court found that the gift deeds were invalid and decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiffs, on 6-2-1993, in separate judgments of identical nature.
8. On appeals by the defendants, judgments and decrees of the trial Court were maintained on 29-3- 1994, by learned Additional District. Judge, Sheikhupura. He shared the views of the trial Court and agreed with them in substance. Thereupon, these two separate civil revisions were filed in this Court.
9. Prime point for consideration in the civil revisions was, whether Mst. Saidan Bibi had. Really donated her total land to her grandsons by two separate registered deeds on 5-2-1981. Record gave a clear` answer in the negative. Both the gift deeds were scribed by Sh. Liaqat Ali, deed-writer of District Courts, Sheikhupura. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was not personally acquainted with the donor Mst. Saidan Bibi and that Nazir Ahmad had identified her to him. Muhammad Ismail, Lambardar of Mauza Jhar identified Mst. Saidan Bibi before the Sub-Registrar and deposed that she. Had stated before the Sub---Registrar that, she donated her land to her grandsons. Nazir Ahmad was a marginal witness of the gift deeds. He gave evidence of their execution at the instance of Mst. Saidan Bibi. Each defendant appeared as a party witness as D.W.4. Stamp-papers for the scribing of gifts on them were purchased on 5-2-1981. Stamp vendor was not produced in evidence. It was not known as to who had purchased the stamp papers and paid for them. Gift deeds were scribed by Liaqat Ali, a deed-writer of Sheikhupura. Nazir Ahmad son of Peer Ali of Feroze Wattowanand Mian Khan son of Abdul Rahman were the marginal witnesses of the gift deeds. These were thumb-marked by Mst. Saidan Bibi and signed by each donee. Muhammad Ismail had identified the parties before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the gift deeds. He was not shown to have attended the execution of the gift deeds before the deed writer.
10. Both the gift deeds did not bear his signatures. He was shown to have joined the process later at the time of the presentation and registration of the gift deeds. Parties belonged to village Feroze Wattowan. Muhammad Ismail was a Lambardar of a different Mauza. On his own showing, he was involved in many cases and was also lodged in Jail. He was type of a Lambardar whose services were easily available on call to fit in. With the requirement of the time. No Lambardar from Feroze Wattowan had appeared before the Sub-Registrar to identify Mst. Saidan Bibi. Mian Khan, the other identifying witness was father of the donees. He affixed his thumb-impression on the gift deeds as a marginal witness and also appeared before the Sub-Registrar for providing identity of the parties before him. He did not enter, the witness-box to depose about execution of the gift deeds and their registration at the instance of Mst. Saidan Bibi. There was no reason for withholding his evidence. It raised an adverse inference against the petitioners.
11. Mst. Saidan Bibi was an illiterate old village woman. She was hard of hearing also. In her statement before the Court, she denied the gift of her land and asserted fraud upon her. Donees were her grandsons born from her daughter Mst. Rasoolan Bibi. They were in a position to influence her disposition. Mst. Saidan Bibi had two sons and two daughters alive. She may have been annoyed with her sons for not serving her in her old age but she was not unhappy with Mst. Fateh Bibi. There was evidence that she resided with her and she looked after her well. There was no explanation for Mst. Saidan Bibi to deprive her natural heirs merely to benefit two sons of a daughter. In case of illiterate woman, the burden of proving due execution of a document lies upon its beneficiary. In the instant case, donees were grandsons of the donor. In view of the close relationship between the parties, the age and mental frame of mind of Mst. Saidan Bibi, she would easily be targeted for fraud upon her valuable rights in the land. Cases in Nur Muhammad v. Mst. Karim Bibi PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lahore 932, Sree Sree Gopal Jeo Bigraha and others v. Mst. Mahmuda Begum and others PLD 1968 Dacca 265, Mst. Hawa v. Muhammad Yousuf and others PLD 1969 Karachi 324, Abdul Karim v.
12. Mst. Kohi Noor Begum and another 1981 CLC 1055 (Karachi), Mumtaz alias Mangta and 2 others v.
13. Nizamuddin 1984 CLC 2826 (Karachi) all laid down that persons dealing with the Pardahnashin and illiterate women were bound to satisfy the Court that disposition of property by them was result of a free exercise of mind by them and that it was made after a full understanding consistent and well settled Courts. All that was placed before them was critically examined by them and after giving due weight to each item of evidence, it was held that Mst. Saidan Bibi was duped to part with her land.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid, civil revision was properly concluded by an agreed finding of fact and there was no room for a different view on the present record. In consequence, civil revision is dismissed in limine. Result of it would be that the land owned by Mst. Saidan Bibi shall be distributed to her Sharie heirs in accordance with law. No other point including that of bar of limitation to the suit was urged at the hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioners. His whole argument was confined to the factum and validity of gifts of land by Mst. Saidan Bibi to the petitioners. As shown above, the point was found against them.