1. ' This civil revision is directed against the impugned judgment and decree, dated 4-12-1996 and 5-12-1996 respectively passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Dadu in Civil Appeal No.18 of 1992 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by applicants and upheld the judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge, Mehar in Suit No.19 of 1985 re: Ludha Ram and others v. Government of Sindh and others.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this civil revision are that one Hoondomal father of respondents 1 to 4 had purchased agricultural, land bearing S. Nos.122 to 125 of Deh Charo and S.Nos.137, 138, 145, 149 and 150 of Deh Nath Taluka -Mehai from one Ghulam Muhammad through registered sale-deed in the year 1926 and the possession thereof was delivered to him. The said Hoondomal gifted the aforesaid landed property to his son Ludharam under M.L.R. 64 and since then Ludharam remained in possession of the property. Somehow, the applicants in collusion with revenue staff managed certain entries in their favour, hence respondent 1 submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner (defendant No.6) for changing the said entry. The D.C. passed an order to the effect that Ghulam Muhammad was entitled to 5 Annas and 4 Paisas share in the suit land and the remaining share belonged to Khanzadi and Muhammad. The respondents Nos.1 to 4, thereafter, filed suit stating that they were being forcibly dispossessed by the applicants and further raised a plea that Ghulam Muhammad who was the sole owner of entire property had rightly sold the property to the father of respondents Nos.1 to 4. The applicants had no legal right and they did not challenge the sale by Ghulam Muhammad in favour of father of respondents 1 to 4.
2. The applicants were defendants in the suit, they filed their written statements pleading therein that the vendor Ghulam Muhammad owned share of property to the extent of 5 Annas and 4 Paisas and that he had no right to sell the entire property to Hoondomal. It was stated that the subsequent gift made by Hoondomal in favour of Ludharam was of no legal effect.
3. The parties adduced their evidence, and ultimately the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondents 1 to 4. The applicants impugned the said judgment and decree filed in Civil Appeal No.37 of 1989 before the Court of District Judge, Dadu. The learned Appellate Court remanded the decision afresh. The trial Court again decreed the suit of the respondents 1 to suit back to trial Court to examine the Revenue Authorities and give its 4 on 26-10-1992. The applicants again impugned the said judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No.18 of 1992, which was ultimately heard and dismissed by IVth Additional District Judge, Dadu on 5-12-1996. The said judgment and decree is impugned here in this civil revision.
4. It is contended by Mr. Ali Ahmed Qureshi learned counsel for the applicants that the sale of suit property by Ghulam Muhammad was not valid as the entire property was not belonging to him and, therefore, he had no right to dispose of the entire property by way of registered sale- deed. The next point which he argued before me is the gift made by Hoondomal in favour of his son Ludharam in the year 1957. It is stated that gift was not in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Law and the gift under section 356 of Hindu Law is necessarily to be registered but according to learned counsel it was oral which had no value in the eye of law.
5. It is argued by Mr. Lachmandas learned counsel for the respondents that the property was sold by Ghulam Muhammad in the year 1926 through registered sale-deed and the said sale-deed was not challenged by the applicants. It is argued that thereafter Hoondomal gifted the suit property to his son Ludharam in the year 1957, but the applicants did not challenge the said gift also. The property is in possession of respondents 1 to 4 since long. The issue in regard to the possession of suit property was decided by two Courts below in favour of respondents 1 to 4.
6. It is pleaded that the points in regard to sale by Ghulam Muhammad in favour of Hoondomal and the gift made by Hoondomal in favour of Ludha Ram in the year 1957 has been dealt with very correctly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. The reference is made to PLD 1968 SC 241 and PLD 1987 Revenue (Sindh) 25.
7. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Assistant Advocate-General has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 4 and has supported the impugned judgments and decrees of two Courts below.
8. The perusal of record reveals that the suit property was sold by Ghulam Muhammad through registered sale-deed dated 27-4-1926 in favour of Hoondomal and handed over possession to vendee. The said Hoondomal in the year 1957 gifted the entire property to his son Luda Ram and since then respondent No.1 is in possession thereof. The applicants neither challenged the sale by Ghulam Muhammad nor the gift made by Hoondomal in favour of Ludha Ram. The documents are more than 30 years old and under Article 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, their genuineness cannot be doubted. Reference can be made to a case of Jekamdas and another v. Abdul Nabi PLD 1958 SC 241. The possession of the suit property is admittedly with the respondents Nos.1 to 4. The suit property is entered in Revenue Record in his name. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 are paying Land Revenue to the Government. The aforesaid points have been discussed and thrashed out by the two Courts below in details. No doubt Deputy Commissioner, Dadu in the year 1984 held that Ghulam Muhammad was owner to the extent of 0-5-4 but the entries are subservient to the registered documents and then the old entries, registered documents and the intricate questions of facts and law are not to be decided summarily by Revenue Authorities. The Deputy Commissioner was not competent to upset the document in the year 1984 which was registered about 58 years ago. The possession of respondent No.1 is established by document Exh.68. This is a E letter issued by Mukhtiarkar, Mehar, to Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, intimating him that suit land was gifted by Hondo Mal to respondent No.1 in accordance with M.L.R. 64 and since then, it is in his possession and is paying land revenue.
9. ' The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The scope of civil revision is very limited and learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out any misappreciation of evidence or misreading of the same. The impugned judgment needs no interference, hence this civil revision is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.