On 28-6-1983 the petitioner filed a suit. In the plaint it was stated that she alongwith the respondents is joint owner in possession of the suit land having inherited the same from her father; that respondent No.1 is the brother of the petitioner who had been cultivating the land on behalf of the sisters as well; that respondent No. 1 got fabricated a gift-deed and got the same registered; that the petitioner had never gifted away the land to respondent No. 1 and had never executed any gift-deed and had never got it registered. She also stated that possession was not delivered by her to respondent No. 1. In his written statement respondent No. l asserted that the petitioner as well as his other sister, namely, Sughran Bibi had gifted away their lands to him validly and that the gift- deed is genuine. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28-4-1988. A first appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Kasur on 12-1-1989 and petitioner's suit was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that evidence whatsoever of a gift, valid or otherwise, is 'resent on the record and that the learned Additional District Judge has acted without lawful authority in dismissing the suit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the gift was admittedly registered and as such a presumption of genuineness was attached to the said document and as such the learned Additional District Judge rightly proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree. I cannot hold expressing my shocking on the way the learned Additional District Judge has proceeded to this matter. I find that what to speak of any of the alleged gift-deed the gift-deed itself had not been produced on record. No marginal witness was examined. The petitioner lady appeared in the witness-box as P.W.2 and had stated that she had not made any gift in favour of her brother and had not thumb-marked any gift-deed. She was cross-examined and was not confronted at all with any gift-deed allegedly executed by her in favour of respondent No. 1. There is no mention at all of the gift-deed in the statement of Abdul Qadir, D.W.1 and Rehmat A.I, respondent No. 1 who appeared as D.W.2. In this state of evidence Mr Muhammad Naveed-ul-Zafar Malik, Additional District Judge, Kasur has proceeded to observe in para. 8 of his impugned judgment as follows:-- "The respondent had challenged the gift-deed, which was a registered document and mutation of gift--based on such gift-deed, vide the present proceedings asserting that she had not executed the gift-deed in question in favour of appellant No. 1, in respect of the property in question. Through evidence produced by her she had failed to prove such contention."
He proceeds further in para. 9 as follows:-- "Since, the impugned gift-deed was a registered document and the respondent had failed to prove that the same was got registered, through fraud, without her knowledge, she was estopped from filing the present suit by her own conduct "
The said learned Additional District Judge then very conveniently opting to be in blessful ignorance of the fact that the respondent No. 1 had entered the witness-box to state that she never executed the gift deed proceeds to discuss the evidence of respondent No. 1 in para. 12 at page 5 of his judgment as follows:- "On the other hand, D.W. 1 Abdul Qadir, D.W. 2 Muhammad Anwar, D.W. 3 Rehmat A.I had denied in their depositions the assertions made on behalf of the respondent, in this case."
These observations in a case where the alleged registered document was not even produced what to speak of its being proved; the said observations of the learned Additional District Judge constrain me to hold that his impugned judgment is shockingly perverse.
3. I will be failing in my duty if I do not record a note of appreciation here for Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. He raised the contention noted above with reference to the case of Mirza Muhammad Sharif and 2 others v. Mst. Nawab Bibi and 4 others (1993 SCM R 462). He was, however, gracious to bring to my attention to the case of Abdul Majeed and 6 others v.
Muhammad Subhan and 2 others (1999 SCMR 12-15) wherein the view expressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistani is that the mere fact that the document is registered does not absolve a person seeking its benefit from proving the same as a fact when its execution is disputed.
4. In view of the above discussion, I find that the said learned Additional District Judge has acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned judgment and decree. It is perversed and is not supported by even a scintilla of evidence on record. Consequently, I allow this Civil Revision, set aside judgment and decree of the said learned Additional District Judge, Kasur passed on 12-1- 1989 and restore the one passed by the learned trial Court on 28-4-1988 decreeing the suit of the petitioner. No orders as to costs.