' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioners have challenged judgment, dated 18-9-1996, whereby a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissed their Civil Revision No,881 of 1996 with the result that the judgment and decree, dated 13-2-1996 passed by a learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin reversing that of the learned Trial Court, dated 24-11-1987 was maintained.
2. The background in which this petition has arisen is that the petitioners filed a declaratory suit alleging therein that suit land measuring 26 Kanals situated in Chak No,21, Tehsil Phalia District Gujrat was gifted to them by Mst. Rajan through registered gift deed, dated 23-12-1979. They also sought an injunction restraining the respondents from interference in their such possession. This Suit bore No,42 of 1980. The respondents, in addition to contesting Civil Suit No,42 of 1980, also brought Civil Suit No,43 of. 1980 against the petitioners seeking a declaration as well as cancellation of gift deed, dated 23-12-1979. Both these suits were consolidated and proceedings therein were taken in Civil Suit No,42 of 1980. The respective claims of the parties in the suits afore- referred were put to trial before the learned trial Court on the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit and by means of gift made by Mst.
Rajan deceased? OPP.
2. Whether the gift deed in question is liable to cancellation on the grounds mentioned in para. No,4 of the cross Suit No,43 of 1980? OPD.
3. Relief."
3. The learned trial Court decreed petitioners' Suit No,42 of 1980 and dismissed that of the respondents vide judgment and decree, dated 24-11-1987.
4. On appeals being filed by the respondents, the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin accepted the same reversed the judgments and decrees of the trial Court by dismissing Civil Suit No,42 of 1980 and decreeing Civil Suit No,43 of 1980. This happened on 13-2- 1996. Paras.16, 17 and 18 of this judgment read thus:-- "16. The circumstances on the record lead to draw irresistible conclusion that she never understood the true import of the contents of these documents; if the documents were executed by her she were under influence of not only Niaz Ahmed but Muhammad Sarwar and Javed Akhtar who constantly joined hands with Niaz Ahmed; and the circumstances do not show that there was any occasion for her to transfer this land to the respondents. In fact, there is no evidence on the record from the respondent's side to show that before execution the contents of these documents were read over to Mst. Hurmat Bibi. The extra precaution taken by Niaz Ahmed per se show that there was some thing at the bottom. Withholding of the original register Hibanama and the special power of attorney germinates serious seeds of doubt. Mst. Rajan Bibi admittedly was having a daughter and a maternal grand son. No circumstances were unveiled to show as to why Mst. Rajan decided obstruct to make Hiba of the said land in favour of the respondents. Niaz Ahmed is real father of the respondents. It is ununderstandable as to why he was selected by Mst. Rajan to transfer the property to his son. It is also in fact that at the time of execution of the documents, Mst.
Rajan was not in the company of any near one. Therefore, in the light of authorities reported in 1994 SCMR 1194, 1992 CLC 402, 1994 CLC 475, PLD 1993 (Lah.) 411 and 1994 MLD 1741. I hold that the respondents failed to prove a valid Hiba in their favour.
17. There is also no evidence on the record to show that the donees or any one on their behalf accepted the Hiba.
18. For what has been discussed above, I find that the impugned gift deed was liable to cancellation. Findings of the learned trial Court on issues Nos.1 and 2 are set aside and both the issues are answered against the respondents."
5. Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing in support of this petition, has contended that the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court did not qualify for being reversed by the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore fell into an error of law in maintaining the later judgment, sans any support from the evidence of the record. According to him, the learned Judge in Chambers has either misread the evidence on the record or failed to consider the salient features of the case which go a long way in establishing gift of the suit land by Mst. Rajan through registered gift deed, dated 23-12-1979.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the available material in the matter with his help. The allegation that the learned Judge in Chambers did either misread the evidence or ignore the same on wrong consideration. This assertion, on its face value, can lead to reverse the impugned judgment but, we hasten to add that it cannot stand any deeper probe therein. We repeatedly asked him to make a reference to any part of the documentary as well as oral evidence on the record which, as alleged by him, has been misread by the learned Judge in Chambers but he did not do so and simply reiterated the argument each time. A perusal of the aforequoted excerpts from the judgment, dated 13-2-1996 in juxtaposition with the impugned judgment, dated 18-9-1996 clearly brings it to the fore that the learned Judge in Chambers approved the findings in the former judgment with the observations "..That Niaz Ahmad on the basis of his alleged special power of attorney Exh.P.6 got the gift deed registered on 23-12- 1979. The execution of special power of attorney on the basis of which the gift was registered has not been established on record through independent evidence. It is not understandable how Muhammad Sharif P.W.2, Sarwar Shah P.W.3 and Javed Akhtar P.W.4 were available to witness all these documents allegedly executed on 27-5-1979, 5-7-1979 and 23-12-1979. It is established on record that the old lady Mst. Rajan was not identified by any independent person at the time of executing of special power of attorney except the beneficiaries Niaz Ahmad as well as Sarwar Shah and Javed Akhtar P.W. I fail to understand how the old lady would bypass her own daughter Mst.
Hurmat and maternal grand son and would gift her entire holding to the sons of her husband's brother. There is also no evidence on record to the effect that she was fully informed about the contents of the documents allegedly attributed to her keeping in view her illiteracy and old age.
Apart from this, there is an evidence on record that Mst. Rajan died on 17-12-1979 while the gift was allegedly registered on 23-12-1979. All these aspects taken together bring me to an irresistible conclusion that the execution of special power of attorney in the name of Niaz Ahmad and subsequent gift of land by him on the basis of the same have not been established on record through independent evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners had failed to point out any irregularity or illegality warranting interference in this matter in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction." It is trite law that the powers of the Appellate Court do extend to reversing the judgment/decree of" trial Court. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge, as Appellate Forum under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were not interfered with by the learned Judge in Chambers with the observation that the same has not been shown to be tantamount to committing an illegality or material irregularity relatable to exercise of the jurisdiction by the Appellate Forum. The Privy Council in its judgment in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh (11 I A 237) held that:-- "..The question then is, did the Judges of the lower Courts in this case, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, act illegally or with material irregularity? It appears that they had perfect jurisdiction to decide the question which was before them and they did decide it. Whether they decided it rightly or wrongly, they had jurisdiction to decide the case, and, even if they decided wrongly, they did not exercise their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularities."
' Similarly, in Balkarishna Vdayat v. Vasudeva Aiyar (AIR 1917 PC 71) the question regarding the extent of High Court's jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was committed upon by the Privy Council as below:-- "It will be observed that the section applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non- exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved."
7. No other point was urged.
8. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.