PEER BAKSH through LRs and others vs Mst. KHANZADI and others

ORDER

' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The impugned judgment dated 16.02.2012 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in the revisional jurisdiction affirms, the concurrent findings given by appellate judgment dated 06.07.1998 and the trial judgment and decree dated 28.03.1996 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan.

2. The learned three Courts below decreed the suit for declaration filed by the two plaintiffs who are sisters and impleaded as respondent No,1 respectively in the two CPLA Nos. 1079-L and 1080-L of 2012 presently being heard and decided by us. These judgments held as void the mutations of gift of landed property made by Ghulam Muhammad under mutation Nos. 1036 and 918 both dated 19.12.1974 in favour of his son Pir Bakhsh, to the exclusion of his two daughters, the plaintiffs in separate suits underlying the two petitions filed by Pir Bakhsh that are being heard and decided presently.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasized that the suit for declaration filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on 20.12.992 to challenge the impugned gift mutations dated 19.12.1.974 recorded in favour of the petitioner are barred by delay for more than 15 years. He also contended that the mutations of gift have been duly proved by the persons who identified Ghulam Muhammad the donor and who are duly supported by the testimonies of the concerned Halaqa Patwari and the attesting Revenue Officer.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that the concurrent findings given by the learned Courts below are based on the evidence on record and are in accordance with law. The petitioner was under an obligation to establish the ingredients of the gift claimed by him under the impugned mutations. However, no particulars whatsoever of the time, date, place and witnesses of the declaration of the gift made by Ghulam Muhammad deceased in favour of the petitioner have been provided in his pleadings nor any evidence could be produced by him in this behalf. This is fatal to the petitioner's plea. Admittedly Ghulam Muhammad deceased was a patient of paralysis and was above 85 years of age when the disputed gift mutations were recorded on his statement in 1974. He is justifiably claimed to be in frail physical condition at the time. However, the Halqa Patwari, Bashir Ahmed (DW.8) has described the person making statement of tamleeq before him as a healthy man. The Courts below have disbelieved the said witness who was admittedly a dismissed public servant. The two persons who identified the alleged donor before the Revenue Officer are not lambardars, let alone of the concerned revenue estates; nor hold any other public office as required by Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Their claim of being co-sharers with the alleged donor Ghulam Muhammad is disputed by a revenue staff witness produced by the petitioner/defendant. Non- compliance with section 42 of the Land Revenue Act is a serious illegality.

5. It is settled law that limitation does not run against a void transaction nor efflux of time extinguishes the right of inherence. Equally a mutation is not a proof of title and a beneficiary there under r must prove the original transaction. Reference is made to the cases of ID Muhammad lqbal v. Mukhtar Ahmad (2008 SCM R 855), Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani (1992 SCM R 1832).

These requirements of law have not been met by the petitioner.

' In view of the foregoing reasons, we do not see any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.