-Even, evidence led to show and prove how, when and where offer was made and same was accepted, where-after possession was delivered, was shaky and contradictory and even petitioner could not mention date, time, place and names of witnesses in written statement which was essential and necessary to be pleaded and proved.

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 17

Evidence--

----Even, evidence led to show and prove how, when and where offer was made and same was accepted, where-after possession was delivered, was shaky and contradictory and even petitioner could not mention date, time, place and names of witnesses in written statement which was essential and necessary to be pleaded and proved.      [Para 3] B

2005 SCMR 135, 2016 SCMR 1417 & 2012 CLC 1651 ref.

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--

----Ss. 42 & 54--Suit for declaration was decreed--Concurrent findings--Correctness of gift-deed or mutation in dispute--Validity of--Petitioner has failed to prove valid execution of gift-deed and subsequent mutation, rather it has surfaced that fraud has been committed with Respondent No. 1--Plaintiff, as petitioner has failed to bring on record any reliable evidence--Concurrent findings on facts recorded by Courts below when do not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence are not open to scrutiny in revisional jurisdictions.            [Para 3 & 5] A & C

2005 SCMR 135, 2016 SCMR 1417, 2012 CLC 1651, 2016 MLD 1535, 2017 SCMR 679, 2014 SCMR 1469 & 2014 SCMR 161.

Mr. Abdul Rauf, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 15.9.2021.

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 17
Present: Shahid Bilal Hassan, J.
Syeda UZMA SHAHZADI--Petitioner
versus
IJAZ ALI SHAH, etc.--Respondents
C.R. No. 55617 of 2021, decided on 15.9.2021.

Order

Succinctly, the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 for challenging the vires of registered gift-deed
No. 1178/1 dated 07.05.2004 in favour of the petitioner and mutation No. 10969 dated 31.07.2007, which suit was duly contested by the petitioner and other defendant. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed’ issues. Evidence of the parties, oral as well as documentary was recorded and the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.05.2018 decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same preferred an appeal against it but the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2021; hence, the instant revision petition. ;

2. Heard.

3. Suffice is to observe that when the validity and correctness of gift-deed or mutation in dispute was challenged, it was mandatory and essential for the petitioner, being beneficiary of the said document, to prove the valid execution of the same in her favour, but when the evidence produced by the parties is seen, it appears that the petitioner has failed to prove the valid execution of gift-deed and subsequent mutation, rather it has surfaced that fraud has been committed with the Respondent No. 1-plaintiff, as the petitioner has failed to bring on record any reliable evidence. Even, evidence led to show and prove how, when and where offer was made and the same was accepted, where-after possession was delivered, was shaky and contradictory and even the petitioner could not mention the date, time, place and names of witnesses in the written statement which was essential and necessary to be pleaded and proved; reliance is placed on Mst. Kulsoom Bibi and another v. Muhammad Arif and others (2005 SCMR 135), Peer Bakhsh through LRs and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others (2016 SCMR 1417), Mst. Mughlani Bibi and others v. Muhammad Mansha and others (2012 CLC 1651-Lahore) and Allah Wassaya v. Mst. Halima Mai and 12 others 2016 MLD 1535-Lahore (Multan Bench). Even the sub-registrar, scribe and registry moharrir and attesting witnesses-of alleged gift-deed were not produced, rather the same were produced by the Respondent No. 1 as P.Ws. who have negated the making of offer, acceptance and delivery, of possession in their presence, so the requirement of Article 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were also not fulfilled and best available evidence has been withheld, so the adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 goes against the petitioner. All these facts go to evince that the Respondent No. 1-plaintiff has been deprived of his right, which factura has been discussed by the learned Courts below in an elaborative way while keeping in view the evidence on record as well as judgments of Apex Court and same does not need any further deliberation and discussion.

4. In view of the above, when impugned judgment and evidence of the parties are put in juxtaposition, it gleans out that evidence of the parties has minutely been scanned and appraised/appreciated while recording the judgments and decrees by the learned Courts below; no misreading and non-reading of evidence has surfaced.

5. For the foregoing reasons, while placing reliance on the judgment supra as well as judgments reported as Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. (2017 SCMR 679), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469) and Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), wherein it has been held that concurrent findings on facts recorded by the learned Courts below when do not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence are not open to scrutiny in revisional jurisdictions, the instant civil revision being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed in limine.

(A.A.K.)          Revision dismissed