MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J. -- The petitioners who are heirs of Maula Bakhsh, deceased filed suit to challenge the gift allegedly made by Maula Bakhsh in favour of Muhammad Hanif in respect of land measuring 398 kanals, 17 marlas and further transaction made by Muhammad Hanif in favour of Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Hafeez and sale by Muhammad Munir in favour of other persons on the ground that Muhammad Hanif fraudulently got the said gift made in his favour by Maula Bakhsh. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioners holding that the gift made by Maula Bakhsh in favour of Muhammad Hanif was the consequence of family settlement.
2. The first Appellate Court after reappraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that there was no evidence available for proving family settlement and decreed the suit. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the revision petition reversed the said findings of facts on further reappraisal of evidence by taking a different view.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that findings of facts recorded by the first Appellate Court could not have been interfered with and reversed by reappraisal of evidence, for according to the established law even, if a different view was possible to be taken, the same could not afford any ground for making interference under Section 115, CPC.
4. He submitted that after the decision of the first Appellate Court, the respondents by compromise conceded the entitlement of the petitioners and delivered possession of their share in the land which is evidenced by the fact that they made application in the revision petition for the withdrawal of the same as the matter had been compromised but despite that the learned Judge of the High Court proceeded to decide the revision petition on merits.
5. Status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the main petition which shall be fixed in the third week of July, 2001.