This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 5-12-2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narowal whereby appeal brought by petitioner against judgment dated 12-7-2001 passed by Civil Judge, Narowal was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Muhammad Sharif, petitioner filed a suit for declaration against Mst. Sharifan Bibi, respondent and stated that his mother owned land measuring 68 Kanals 5 Marlas. He further stated that after the death of his mother he came to know that Mst. Sharifan Bibi respondent/defendant in collusion with other respondents/defendants got transferred suit-land in her favour vide gift mutation No,159 dated, 19-3-1996. He alleged that he was in possession of suit land as owner and heir of his mother and that aforesaid mutation (No,159 dated 19-3-1996) was bogus based on fraud and liable to be cancelled. Mst. Sharifan Bibi appeared in trial Court and filed written statement. She mentioned that her mother had rightly transferred suit-land in her favour and that plaintiff was aware about the same. She also mentioned that plaintiff knew about the gift at the time of its completion but he did not raise any objection when her mother was alive and that possession was delivered according to law. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- (1 ) Whether the gift of the suit property was validly made by the doner in favour of the defendants and Mutation No,159 was rightly entered and attested? OPD (1-A) If above issue is not proved, whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property and entitled -to a declaratory decree alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction as sought for? OPP
(2) Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi? OPD
(3) Whether suit is insufficiently valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, if yes what is the proper valuation? OPD
(4) Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD
(5) Whether plaintiff has not come in the Court with clean hands? OPD
(6) Whether, suit is frivolous and vexatious and defendants are entitled to compensatory costs?
OPD
(7) Relief.
After recording evidence trial Court dismissed the suit brought by petitioner/plaintiff on 12-7-2001.
He tiled appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional . District Judge. Narowal. Hence this revision petition.
3. Arguments heard.
4. The case of the petitioner is that gift Mutation (No,159 dated 19-3-1996) is based on fraud and that his mother (Mst. Begum Bibi), never delivered possession to respondent, therefore, 'gift was not complete and mutation is liable to be cancelled. Admittedly Mst. Begum Bibi was mother of respodnent, Mst. Sharifan Bibi. As mentioned above the case of the petitioner is that his mother had not transferred suit-land in favour of respondent. The plaintiff while appearing as P.W.1 admitted in cross-examination that his sister (Mst. Sharifan Bibi) was living in Mohallah Puran Nagar of Sialkot City and that his mother was also buried in the graveyard of Mohallah Puran Nagar. He also admitted that at the time of death his mother was in the house of Mst. Sharifan Bibi and that she died 21/2 months after the attestation of mutation of gift. It shows that his mother had been living with the respondent. Mst. Sharifan Bibi while appearing as D.W.1 stated that suit-land was owned by her mother, Mst. Begum Bibi, who transferred the same in her favour by way of gift and she also obtained possession of suit land. D.W.2 Muhammad Rafique, D.W.3, Maqsood Ahmad and D.W.4 Muhammad Aslam have also supported the version of respondent. D.W.2 was Patwari of the village at the time of attestation of mutation whereas D.W.3 is Lumbardar. Both these D.Ws. are independent witnesses. Their statements 1 are convincing and confidence inspiring. Admittedly suit-land is part of joint khata, therefore. possession of a co-sharer is possession of all the co- sharers: Even otherwise as mentioned above respondent while appearing as D.W.1 clearly stated that she had obtained possession of suit-land on the basis of gift. It is clear from record that the Courts below had decided case after appreciation of evidence. There is no misreading of evidence. Likewise there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by Appellate Court. As much this revision petition has no force and the same accordingly dismissed.