Through this civil revision, petitioner has challenged judgment and decree dated 28-9-1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kamalia, dismissing petitioner's suit for declaration on the basis of gift and judgment and decree dated 23-7-1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kamalia, dismissing petitioner's appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that learned Courts below have misread the evidence and have committed material irregularity by confusing oral partition with that of oral gift, although ingredients of gift under Muhammadan Law were complete in the present case.
3. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of respondents to pursue the case, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte on 19-12-2002.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Courts below through concurrent findings of facts came to this conclusion that Ghulam Qadir, deceased i.e. Father of the parties never gifted Ahatas Nos.5039 and 5023 (total measuring 7-1/2 Marlas) to the petitioner and that none of the ingredients of a valid Hiba under Muhammadan Law, has been proved through evidence.
5. I have re-examined the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence. Petitioner, in para.2 of the plaint stated that Ghulam Qadir died in 1962. In para.4 of the plaint, petitioner has asserted that deceased Ghulam Qadir had, in his lifetime, partitioned his ownership amongst the parties. And that the suit-land was orally gifted by Ghulam Qadir to the petitioner. Petitioner while appearing as P.W.1 deposed in his statement that Ghulam Qadir died in 1965 and he had two wives. And that in 1948, he partitioned and distributed his land amongst the parties. Petitioner continued to state that Ghulam Qadir, deceased, after oral partitioning and distribution of Ahata-Jaat, proceeded to orally transfer the said Ahata-Jaat to the parties by way of Hiba. And that the suit-land was gifted to the petitioner intriguingly. The plaint as well as evidence of the petitioner is vague, general and non- particularized. Petitioner has failed to particularize in his pleadings the date of offer, acceptance and transfer of possession of the suit-land to him by way of Hiba from his deceased father Ghulam Qadir. In fact, petitioner neither asserted offer or acceptance nor did he prove the same. Contrarily, even the date of death of Ghulam Qadir is contradictory in the pleadings and in evidence. I, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the impugned judgments and. Decrees. This Civil Revision is thus dismissed having no merit. There shall be no order as to costs.