ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J. ---Petitioner, a defendant in the suit, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 22-5-1996 dismissing his revision petition (C.R. 483-D of 1995/BWP) which was directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 24-10-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and her suit decreed.
2. Petitioner and the respondent are real brother and sister inter se. Dispute between them has emanated from an oral gift made by their father Shera Wattoo of his entire holding comprising 92 Kanals of land situate in village Munshi Hithar, Tehsil Minchanabad, District Bahawalnagar in favour of the petitioner vide Mutation No.209 sanctioned on 8-2-1982. Mst. Sharifan respondent, the only daughter of her father had been married 20 years before and was living in Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. Aggrieved of the gift aforementioned, she challenged its validity in a civil suit alleging, inter alia, that tier father at the relevant the was old and infirm and that the mutation of gift was a result of fraud and deceit practised by the petitioner in connivance with the revenue staff and the co- villagers. The suit was resisted by the petitioner which gave rise to numerous issues. Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both parties dismissed the respondent's suit holding that the Tamleek mutation was not the product of fraud and collusiveness.
3. Appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent, as stated above, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar and her suit was decreed vide judgment dated 24-10- 1995. It was observed by the learned Additional District Judge that at the the of alleged Tamleek, the donor was about 80/90 years old "as is evident from the statement of P.W. 4 Rehman son of Soba". (He was in fact D.W. 4). It was also noted by the learned Additional District Judge that as deposed by the defendant, "his father died after 3/4 days of the completion of alleged Tamleek and Mutation No.209". In the view of the learned Judge, these to facts, one pertaining to old age of the donor and his natural infirmity and the second of his death after 3/4 days of the alleged Tamleek, "cause serious doubts on the veracity of the respondent/defendant and it is common in our society that to deprive the legal heirs, especially sisters, such like exercise is being done".
4. Revision petition filed by the petitioner bore no fruit and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court vide the impugned judgment holding, after examining the evidence on record that although Muhammad Akram Patwari D.W. 2 and Muhammad Hussain D.W. 3, a Zamindar of the village supported the defendant by deposing that Shera was in full senses at the the of mutation and he had willingly transferred his entire property in favour of his son to the exclusion of his only daughter, "yet the statement of Rehman D.W. 4 lends a meaningful support of the stand of Sharifan that Shera at that the would be of 80/90 years of age". It was also observed by the learned Judge in the High Court that it was easy for the petitioner to win the support of his co---villager and revenue staff because Mst. Sharifan had gone out of the village for over 20 years, having been married in Depalpur. The learned Judge also upheld the view of the lower Appellate Court regarding the inadmissibility of photo copy of Roznamcha Waqiati Exh. D. 1 observing that "no explanation has been given as to where was the original one". The learned Judge further proceeded to observe that since the original was deliberately withheld, the thumb-impressions could not be sent to Expert for examination and comparison with his earlier proved thumb- impressions. The learned Judge also observed that signatures of Muhammad Hussain on the to documents viz. Exh.D-1 and the mutation Exh.D-2 "are visibly different from each other-------. The variation in his signatures also cast doubt on the genuineness of this transaction". The learned Judge finally held that the Appellate Court "seems to have properly and correctly read and construed the evidence on, record and duly accepted the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Appellate Court or any substantial error committed by the learned Judge"
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at quite some length. He has not been able to point out any serious infirmity in the afore-noted findings of the Appellate Court and the learned Judge in the High Court regarding the gift in dispute being the result of fraud and collusion which findings, as noted above, have been recorded after detailed examination/appraisal of the evidence on record. Needless to observe that the question whether the gift/Tamleek mutation in dispute was the result of fraud and collusion is purely one of fact which stands concluded by the findings of to learned Courts recorded after thorough appraisal of the evidence which is not shown to suffer from any misreading/non-reading. The impugned findings, therefore, do not call for any interference. Learned counsel also feebly sought to contend that the suit filed by the respondent was barred by the but when it was pointed out to him that she being the real sister of the petitioner was a co-owner of the suit property and would be deemed to be in possession thereof and as such limitation would not run against her, he did not press the point any further.
6. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused.