' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment, dated 13-4-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,785 of 2001.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration against his sons and grandsons i.e, the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 to 4 in respect of suit property challenging gift Mutation No,603, dated 29-9-1996 on the grounds, inter alia, of fraud and misrepresentation. On the other hand, the petitioners also filed a civil suit for declaration for the validity of the said Mutation No,603 followed by another Mutation No,605, dated 8-10-1996. Both the civil suits were consolidated. The trial Court decreed the suit of respondent No,1 and dismissed the one filed by the petitioners, vide judgment and decree, dated 29-4-1999. The appeal and civil revision of the petitioners were also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and the High Court by judgments, dated 12-3-2001 and dated 13-4-2001 respectively. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel argued that respondent No,1 had duly gifted away his 2 acres of land to his son, the petitioner No,1 vide Mutation No,603. The petitioner No,1 further gifted the suit land to his sons, the petitioners No,2 to 4. There was no element of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence in the alienation of the suit land by the respondent No,
1. All the essential ingredients of a valid gift under Islamic Law were satisfied. The petitioner No,1 had been seriously injured for which a criminal case had also been registered against his nephew at the instance of the respondent No,l. The gift was made by the respondent No,1 to recompense the petitioner No,1 for his injuries, agony and the expenses incurred by him on his medical treatment. The criminal case was, therefore, withdrawn in order to maintain peace and harmony within the family. The respondent No,1 had voluntarily appeared before the Halqa Patwari, admitted the making of gift and delivery of possession of the suit property. It was next contended that all the Courts had misread the evidence on record with regard to the gift by the respondent No,1 in favour of the petitioner No,1. The learned counsel argued that the findings of the Courts on Issues Nos.1 to 11 were contrary to evidence on record and pleadings of the parties.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have carefully considered his submissions. In this case all the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact on the basis of evidence on record that none of the essential requirements of a valid gift was satisfied. The Courts came to the conclusion that no offer of gift or its acceptance or delivery of possession of the suit land had taken place. The marginal witness of Gift Mutation No,603 namely Mehram Khan, D.W.1, Lambardar, did not support the case of the petitioners. The respondent No,1 was found to be an illiterate person. His presence was not shown at the time of attestation of Mutation No,603 by the Assistant Collector. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court.
This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.