' Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 20-11- 1994 passed by Civil Judge, Lodhran whereby the suit filed by respondents was decreed as also the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, dated 3-7-1995 whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the afore-referred judgment and decree was affirmed.
2. Facts in brief are that respondents who are legal heirs of Ghulam Muhammad deceased like the petitioner challenged the validity of gift deed registered bearing No,3231, dated 8-11-1978 as also Mutation No,256 attested on 23-1-1979 pursuant to the afore-referred deed on the ground that these were product of fraud and impersonation, that Ghulam Muhammad deceased died on 20-9- 1978 leaving behind three sons and three daughters to succeed the property. It was claimed that respondents-plaintiffs inherited 31 Kanals and 12 Marlas (being a share of 7/9) and that petitioner- defendant inherited a share of 2/9th in the property of the deceased. It was further submitted that Ghulam Muhammad died on the afore-referred date at the age of 120 years on 20-9-1978 whereas the impugned gift deed reduced into writing on 8-11-1978 and that the age shown in the gift deed is 45 years. It was alleged that the thumb-impression on the gift deed were fictitious; that petitioner- defendant had been paying the produce to all the legal heirs till Rabi 1991. When he denied the ownership of the respondents-plaintiffs and as soon as they came to know about the fraud, they filed the instant suit. The petitioner-defendant controverted the averments made in the plaint and claimed exclusive ownership of the land which was subject-matter of the gift allegedly made in their favour by the deceased Ghulam Muhammad.
3. In terms of the conflicting pleas, following issues were framed:--
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property and registered sale-deed No,3132 of 8-11-1978, Mutation No,256 of 23-1-1979 and entries of Revenue Record from 75-76 onwards are against law and facts, void, ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
(ii) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(iv) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purpose of court-fee? OPD.
(v) Whether the suit is mala fide and defendant is entitled to special cost? OPD.
(vi) Relief.
4. The learned trial Court decided issues Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in favour of respondents-plaintiffs mainly on the ground that Ghulam Muhammad died on 20-9-1978 and the so-called gift deed was latter in time; that at the time of registration of the gift deed, somebody else impersonated as Ghulam Muhammad; that limitation would not run against the respondents-plaintiffs as fraud vitiates even solemn proceedings; that the respondents-plaintiffs being heirs of Ghulam Muhammad deceased would be deemed to be in possession of the land to the extent of their share of inheritance and that the suit had been rightly valued.
5. The learned District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court on the ground that the evidence led by respondents-plaintiffs had proved the case to the hilt whereas the evidence relied upon by the petitioner-defendant was of weak nature and the same could not be relied upon.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the concurrent finding of the learned lower Courts on the ground that presumption of truth is attached to public documents and the registered deed being a public document has to be given credence against the oral evidence adduced by the respondents-plaintiffs. It was further contended that the respondents-plaintiffs had to stand on its' own leg and any affirmity in the evidence of petitioner-defendant would be of no avail to the respondents. Referring to a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in 1989 SCM R 1719, learned counsel contended that the material issue qua the death of Ghulam Muhammad deceased having not been framed, petitioner-defendant had been materially prejudiced and the case deserves to be remanded.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has defended the impugned judgments by submitting that there are concurrent finding of fact that there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence to warrant interference. It was further submitted that ample opportunity was given even at the appellate stage to rebut Exh.P.3 but petitioner-defendant failed to rebut that the date of death of Ghulam Muhammad deceased having been established beyond shadow of doubt, the subsequent registration of the gift deed is of no value.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. In support of its case, respondents-defendants had produced P.W.1 Ahmad Din who is one of the plaintiffs, P.W.2 Abdul Qadir who is son of Muhammad Amin, one of the plaintiffs and Hafiz Abdul Hakeem P.W.3, who is the one who led the Jinaza prayers of Ghulam Muhammad deceased and Mst. Khan Bibi P.W. 4 who is daughter of Ghulam Muhammad deceased. Tamleeknama, dated 8-11- 1979 is Exh.P.1, mutation attested on the basis of the afore-referred deed is Exh.P.W.2 and death certificate of Ghulam Muhammad deceased in Exh.P.3. As per death certificate Exh.P.3 it was duly proved that Ghulam Muhammad died on 20-9-1978 and at that time, he was 120 years of age. The gift deed is dated 8-11-1978 which is latter in time and the age of Ghulam Muhammad shown in the gift deed is 45 years. It seems that it was not Ghulam Muhammad who was produced before the Registrar but somebody else. Nothing in rebuttal to Exh.P.3 was adduced by the defendant rather the trend of cross-examination on P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 indicates that petitioner-defendant admitted that Ghulam Muhammad deceased was 65/70 years of age at the time of his death. If that be so, then the person produced at the time of registration of Ex(or Exh.D.1) was somebody else as the age of the said person mentioned therein is 45 years. The petitioner-defendant was not even sure of the date of death of Ghulam Muhammad deceased and he even did not appear himself as a witness. D.W.1 Imam Bakhsh who is son of one of the petitioner-defendant admitted that he was 10/12 years of age at the time of attestation of gift deed. In cross-examination, he admitted that plaintiff No,3, namely Khan Bibi (daughter of Ghulam Muhammad) was 63/64 years of age at the time of recording of his statement. It would mean that when her father expired, she was 50 years of age. This further creates a dent in their case because if she was 50 years of age then the person who appeared as Ghulam Muhammad at the time of the registration of gift deed having the age of 45 years could not have been her father. The only witness of the attestation produced in Court namely, Taj Muhammad is not worthy of credit firstly because, in his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of attestation of Exh.D.1 one Abdul Ghaffar was also present whereas in the recital of the gift deed, the latter's presence is not marked. Ashiq Hussain D.W.3 who identified Ghulam Muhammad deceased at the time of the attestation does not belong to the same Mauza. No other respectable of the area or Lumberdar or Patwari appeared to identify Ghulam Muhammad. In the face of the afore-referred evidence, no credence can be placed on gift deed Exh.P.1 or Exh.D.1.
'So far as the question of limitation in filing the civil suit is concerned, the finding of the Courts below that since gift deed was void, therefore, no limitation would run against the same is not open to exception. The said issue has, therefore, rightly been decided in favour of the respondents- plaintiffs. No substantial misreading, non-reading or material irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. I see no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.