' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12-3-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Kot Addu, whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 24-2-1994 passed by the learned Civil_ Judge, Kot Addu.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff/petitioner Ghulam Rasool filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Ghulam Mustafa defendant/respondent No,1 alleging that respondent No,1 took into custody Ghulam Hassan deceased and got executed a gift deed in his favour on account of undue influence, collusion and fraud. According to him, no valid Tamleek was made by Ghulam Hassan, the alleged donor and possession was also not delivered to respondent No,1 Ghulam Mustafa during the lifetime of Ghulam Hassan. He asserted that he and respondent No,2 being brother and sister of the deceased' are owners in possession of 1/2 share and the rest 1/2 share shall devolve upon respondent No,1 being daughter's son of the deceased. As a consequential relief it was prayed that respondent No,1 be permanently restrained from interfering in the possession of petitioner and respondent No,2. Respondent No,1 resisted, the claim, controverted the assertions of the plaintiff/petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of suit.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether plaintiff along with defendant No,2 is owner in possession up to 1/2 share as legal heirs?
OPP.
(2) Whether registered deed No,1610, dated 18-9-1986 and subsequent Mutations Nos.738 and 739 are fraudulent and collusive? OPP.
(3) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to bring this suit? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.
(5) Whether description of the suit is incorrect? If so, what is the correct description and to what effect? OPD.
(6) Whether suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is the correct valuation and to what effect? OPD.
(7) Relief.
' In support of his claim, plaintiff/petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and Muhammad Amin as P.W.2. He also brought on record the documents Exhs.P.1 to P8 and thereafter closed his evidence. In rebuttal, the defendant/respondent No,1 examined himself as D.W.1 Ghulam Rasool as D.W.2 and Karim Bakhsh D.W.3. He brought on record copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.1 and then closed his defence evidence.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated 24-2-1994, who.
Assailed the same by way of appeal which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 12-3-1996. Hence the instant civil revision.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ petitioner has assailed the impugned judgments and decrees mainly on the ground that both the Courts below have failed to note that the original gift deed has not been brought on record by the defendant/ respondent No,1, as such he has failed to prove the alleged gift in his favour by the deceased. His contention is that as respondent No,1 bases his claim on the gift deed, so it was his duty to bring the original of that document and also prove its execution and relied upon Syed Mansoor Ahmad v. Mst. Maqbool Begura and others (1990 SCM R 1259) and Ghulam Ghaus and 6 others v. Barkat Ali and another (1992 M LD 1363 (Lahore).
6. Conversely, the impugned judgments and decrees have been supported by learned counsel for defendant/respondent No,1. His contention is that as the execution of gift deed stands admitted by the plaintiff/petitioner himself, so there was no need of bringing the original document on record and to prove its execution. He further argued that as fraud, coercion and collusion have been alleged by the plaintiff/petitioner, so the onus was on him to prove that the gift deed was the result of said fraud etc., that this onus has rightly been placed upon him vide issue No,2 and the same has not been discharged by him. He further urged that there was no need to produce any evidence to dislodge the claim of plaintiff/petitioner as he has admitted that be was not aware if any gift deed had been executed or not, that in view of this clear cut admission on the part of plaintiff/petitioner there was no need to disprove the assertion of the plaintiff/petitioner that gift deed is the result of fraud, collusion and coercion. He further submitted that both the Courts have returned findings after analysing evidence minutely and the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading. He, thus, prayed that revision petition be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ petitioner has challenged the gift deed mainly on two scores.
His first objection is that original of gift deed, dated 18-9-1986 has not been brought on record by the defendant/ respondent No,1 as such he has failed to prove that it was ever executed and consequently he cannot get any benefit out of that document. His second contention is that the said document has been obtained by respondent No,1 on account of fraud, collusion and undue influence. Both these contentions are devoid of any force for the following reasons: ' So far as the question of production of original gift deed is concerned, there was no need to produce it as the very execution of this document stands admitted by the plaintiff/ petitioner in his very plaint, when he states that respondent No,1 got executed a gift deed from the deceased as a result of fraud, collusion and undue influence. Again he has contradicted himself by deposing that he did not know if the deceased had alienated any land in favour of respondent. Now on the one hand he has admitted its execution and on the other hand, he has shown his lack of knowledge if the donor had alienated any land in favour of donee i,e, respondent No, I . Thus, as the very execution is not denied by respondent, so there was no need to produce the original document;
(ii) Secondly, the stand of plaintiff/ petitioner is that alleged gift deed is the result of fraud, collusion and undue influence. A perusal of statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not reveal that the impugned document is the result of fraud and coercion as they are silent on that point; and
(iii) Much stress has also been laid on the point that possession of disputed land was not handed over to donee, so the ingredients of gift deed are not proved. Suffice is to say that a portion of joint property has been gifted by the donor. Prior to its alienation in favour of respondent No,1, it was jointly owned by the deceased and the plaintiff. Thus, the property was owned jointly. It has also come on record that previously land was under cultivation of Allah Diwaya. As per copy of Khasra Girdwari, the same has been shown in possession of Allah Diwaya. The possession of Allah Diwaya tenant shall be deemed to be that of respondent No,l. Thus, the ingredient of handing over possession to respondent also stands proved.
8. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to cases, involving illegal assumption, non- exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or fact which do not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of this Court, no matter, however, erroneous, wrong or perverse, the decision might be either on a question of fact or law, unless the matters involve a question of jurisdiction. Neither any such aspect has been put forth nor is seemingly available, so as, to attract provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Judgments and decrees, sought to be impeached and set at naught are accordingly, unexceptionable as the same neither appear to suffer from any infirmity or any irregularity nor perversity or arbitrariness.
' Hence viewed from any angle, revision petition merits dismissal and is, hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.