Instant of civil revision is directed against the order dated 20-1-2000 passed by the learne District Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby he has confirmed the order dated 6-6-1998 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Bahawalnagar.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be owner of the suit land mentioned therein on the basis of an oral gift by their father Muhammad A.I. Alongwith this suit they also moved an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in their possession during the pendency of that suit. Both the plaint as well as application for interim injunction were resisted by the defendants/respondents.
3. After going through the record and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application for interim injunction vide order dated 6-6-1998. The plaintiffs/petitioners felt aggrieved of the said order and filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar who was also pleased to confirm the said order' vide his order dated 20-1- 2000. The plaintiffs/petitioners have felt aggrieved of the said orders and assailed the same through this revision petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Stand of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners is that it was not mandatory on the part of plaitniffs/petitioners to get the gift attested or incorporated, as the said gift stands exempted from attestation under the Transfer of Property Act. He further contends that the suit-land is coming in possession of Abdur Rasheed son of Noor Muhammad as lessee of Mst. Hanifan and others. He thus submits that as it is yet to be seen if the oral gift claimed by the plaintiffs/petitioners is a valid transaction or not, so their possession over land through their lessee Abdur Rasheed be maintained and protected.
6. Conversely, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitionders have been controverted by the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents. The main stand of the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents is that as plaintiffs/petitioners are not in possession of any documentary evidence regarding their ownership over the suit property, so the very ingredients required or issuing such interim injunction, is lacking in the instant case. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon (1994 M LD 2019), (NLR 1994 UC 619) and (1995 CLC 1003).
7. Admittedly the suit property belongs to Muhammad A.I on whose death it has devolved upon the defendants vide Mutation No.466 dated 18-8-1996. The plaintiffs/petitioners now claim themselves to be owner of the suit land to the extent of their own share out of the land left by the deceased Muhammad A.I Since there is nothing on the record to substantiate A the contention of the plaintiffs/petitioners that they had, ever been alienated the suit land by way -of gift so the basic ingredient for issuing interim injunction is lacking in the instant case. Both the Courts below have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law which do not call for any interference. There is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.