' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dared 14-6-1999 dismissing his Civil Revision No,1541 of 1986 maintaining concurrent findings of fact arising out of a suit for declaration challenging the validity of a registered gift deed, dated 31-3- 1977.
2. Niaz Ali, who was the last male owner of the said land made a gift of the land in favour of the respondents, who are his real nephews. Petitioners, who are also nephews of the said Niaz Ali, questioned the correctness of the gift on the ground that he was confined to bed, suffering from paralysis and a head injury and as such was unable to move about or speak. Suit was resisted by the respondents. Issues were settled and evidence was adduced by both the parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 24-1-1985. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 30-3-1986. Civil revision before the High Court also proved fruitless, hence this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance gone through the relevant evidence as well as the impugned judgment. In our view, Courts below have carefully scanned and scrutinized the evidence produced by the parties and come to a right conclusion that there was no inherent defect in the gift deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the gift in dispute was purportedly executed in the village of the deceased whereas another gift on the same day by the same person was executed before the Sub-Registrar at Gujrat. Learned counsel seeks support from the existence of the second gift deed, which was not challenged by any of the parties. We are least impressed by the submission of the learned counsel, as there was no occasion to make second gift wherein property has been gifted in favour of the legal heirs, who would have even otherwise inherited the same under the Muslim Law of Inheritance. At any event petitioners having not challenged the correctness or otherwise of the second deed cannot be permitted to question the validity thereof for the first time bcfore this Court, which was not the issue before the Trial Court between the parties.
4. On a careful consideration of the record and perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that no ground for grant of leave is made out and no substantial question of law of public importance has been raised within the meaning of Article 185 of the Constitution.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.