' In this revision petition, the petitioners had challenged the judgment and decree, dated 11-10-1992 passed by the District Judge, Bhakkar, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 16-5-1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Bhakkar, decreeing the suit was upheld.
2. The facts leading to the present revision petition are to the effect that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction in respect of the suit property measuring 11 Kanals, 15 Marlas and 1/4 share out of 82 Kanals and 8 Marlas land situated in Mauza Jandanwala and also challenged the validity of the Mutation No,539, dated 31-3-1983 sanctioned in favour of the petitioners being based on fraud. The petitioners/defendenats filed their written statements denying the averment of the plaint raising the plea that the property was gifted by Haji Shama, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondent with his all free consent appearing before the Revenue Officer. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed various issues and afters recording the evidence decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent. During proceedings, it was offered that if the petitioner/defendant No,2 states on oath to the effect that the petitioners are not in possession over the suit property, the suit of the petitioners/respondents be dismissed and in case of giving oath the suit be decreed. The petitioner/defendant No,2 Sultan stated on oath that the plaintiff/respondent is only in possession over 1 Kanal of land and the rest of the land is in possession of the petitioners/defendants. The trial Court in the light of the statement recorded on oath partly decreed the suit only to the extent of one Kanal and to the extent of rest of the property, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 8-9-1986.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/ plaintiff preferred an appeal and the District Judge, Bhakkar, vide judgment and decree, dated 17-6-1987 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the case for decision afresh. After remand, the trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 16-5-1988 decreed the suit and set aside the mutation in dispute No,539, dated 31-3- 1,983. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/defendants preferred an appeal and the District Judge, Bhakkar vide judgment and decree, dated 11-10-1992 dismissed the same and maintained the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had mainly urged that the lower Courts have illegally passed the judgment and decree against the petitioners and committed an error in law in not taking into consideration of statements of Fakharuddin D.W.1 and Waryam D.W.2 produced by the petitioner.
Both had stated that the father of the petitioners and respondent Haji Shama had gifted the property in favour of the petitioners/defendants, and he, himself appeared before the Revenue Officer. He further contended that the possession of the property was delivered by the donor in favour of the petitioners/defendants, and he supported that the mutation of gift was legally sanctioned by the Revenue Officer, and there is no illegality in this mutation of gift.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that the respondent was illegally deprived of his legal share by the petitioners and they got sanctioned the mutation fraudulently. He supported the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
5. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners claimed to be in possession over the suit property vide mutation of gift in their favour sanctioned on 31-3-1983. The petitioners have failed to establish on record three requirements of gift by their father Haji Shama and to prove a valid gift the litigant has to prove (1) declaration by the donor of the property, (2) acceptance by the donees, and (3) delivery of possession under the declaration of gift. The petitioners produced only oral evidence and got recorded statements of D.W.1 and D.W.2. In the statements of the witness, nowhere, it has been stated that the donor had ever declared to the effect that he wanted to gift his property to the petitioners nor there is any evidence of acceptance of gift by the donees/petitioners. The documents produced by the petitioners are not proof of the fact that the possession was delivered by the donor to the donees under the gift. A copy of death certificate produced by the petitioners showed that the donor died on 16-9-1984 and according to the entry. His death was recorded on 10-11-1985 in the record. From the reading of Khasra Girdawari produced by the petitioner for the crops Kharif 1982 to Rabi 1985, it transpired that in column of ownership name of Haji Shama is appearing and in column of cultivation names of the petitioners have been entered, but no copy of daily diary, of the Patwari was produced to establish this fact that this entry was made under the instruction of Haji Shama, donor. The petitioners have failed to prove all the threele requirements for a valid gift. It is also pertinent to mention here that the property in dispute is situated in Mauza Jandanwala but the mutation was sanctioned in Mauza Kaloor Kot in violation of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act. As it was a gift of mutation it should have been sanctioned in the estate where the property in dispute was lying. The petitioners had also.Failed to bring on record the special circumstances as to why the donor Haji Shama had gifted away the property in favour of petitioners/defendants and deprived of the respondent/plaintiff only who, was also real son and real heir of the deceased. There are concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below against the petitioners and the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any misreading/non- reading of the evidence by the Courts below. The findings recorded by the two Courts below are not liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction and it stands established on the record that the revision petition has no force.
6. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Courts below shall be maintained. No order as to costs.