' This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12-4-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kamalia whereby the judgment and decree, dated 21-10-1998 awarded by the trial Court in favour of the respondent was upheld.
2. Facts in brief are that a suit for declaration was tiled by the respondent seeking declaration that she is owner in respect of five Kanals 18 Marlas of land out of Khewat No,184, Khatuni No,498 to 500 having total area of 222 Kanals and 7 Marlas by virtue of Mutation of Inheritance No,496 dated 26- 11-1987 and that Mutation No,596 dated 13-7-1991 and subsequent Mutation No,600 dated 31-8-1991 is ineffective upon her rights and these two mutations are the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The case set up by the respondent in her plaints that her father was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share measuring 74 Kanals, 3 Marlas in Khewat No,180, Khatuni Nos.446 to 451 out of total area of 222 Kanals and 7 Marlas situated in Chak No,71 GB, Tehsil Kamalia, and after his death Mutation of Inheritance No,496 dated 26-11-1987 was entered and sanctioned and in view of the inheritance, the plaintiff/respondent was declared to be the owner to the extent of 5 Kanals, 18 Marlas whereof she is owner in possession ever since her inheritance. It is further stated in the Plaint that in Rabi 1996 the plaintiff/respondent demanded her share in the produce from the defendants/petitioners but despite the promise they did not give any prodder to the respondent and she came to know that a mutation was sanctioned alleged to be on behalf of three sisters and respondents bearing No,596, dated 13-7-1991 whereby all the four sisters including the respondents alienated their share in favour of their mother. Soon after the entire share of the four sisters was alienated by the mother in favour of two brothers it was asserted that both the mutations in favour of the brothers are based on fraud. The suit was contested by the defendants/petitioners. After recording the evidence and hearing, the suit filed by the respondent was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 21-10-1998. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Mutation No,596 which was attested on 13-7- 1991 in favour of Mst. Ramzan Bibi mother of the parties was entered into on behalf of four sisters and all of them including the respondent have appeared before the Revenue Officer to testify its correctness. One of the sister Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi appeared as D.W.2. This evidence was not appreciated by the two Courts below in its proper prospective. The learned counsel argued that vide Mutation No,596 which is Exh.P.3 the respondent has gifted her share in favour of her mother and that she has filed the suit at the behest of her husband. The counsel for the respondent supported the judgments of two Courts below.
4. After hearing the arguments and examining the record I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and persuaded to hold that the judgments of both the Courts below are based on sound reasoning and no misreading of any evidence had occasioned. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that no independent delivery of possession took place in favour of Mst. Ramzan Bibi as such, one of the vital ingredients of gift was lacking, consequently the Mutation No,596, dated 13-7-1991 had to fall. Resultantly the Mutation No,600 dated 31-8-1991 which was based on Mutation No,596 loses its foundation. In arriving to their conclusion both the Courts below were also influenced by this circumstantial fact that the sisters were alleged to have made all mutations on 13-7-1991 in favour of mother who just after a month transferred their entire share in favour of the two sons whereby the genuineness of transaction of gift was made unacceptable. The reasoning of both the Courts below is weighty and forceful.
5. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below and finding no misreading of the evidence or misapplication of law, I do not find any substance in the revision petition thus the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.