1. Through this appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of judgment and decree dated 23.5.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Sahiwal, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the appellant’s husband was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant’s husband filed a suit for declaration contending that the father of the parties purchased a piece of land measuring 8-Kanals 1-Marla 2-Sarsahi bearing Khasra No.5329 Khatooni No.440, Khewat No.267 situated at City Sahiwal, the major portion of which was gifted to Habib Ahmad Khan, the appellant’s husband by his father, upon which, he constructed a residential building whereas some portion of the said land was gifted to defendants No.1 and 2 upon which they also constructed the residences, however, the said Tamleek was not incorporated in the revenue record; that defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess Habib Ahmad Khan, the appellant’s husband from his residential building measuring 6-Kanals 14-Marlas. Defendants No.1 and 2 appeared before the learned trial Court and filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable; that the appellant has no cause of action; that the appellant is a lawyer and has filed the frivolous suit just to deprive them from their share in the inherited property; and that the property in question was not gifted to the appellant’s husband by their father.
Initially, the suit was ex-parte decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.1982 on the basis of alleged consenting written statement of defendants No.2 to 4 but later on, defendants No.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 12 (2) CPC, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2005, the same was assailed in revision petition which was allowed vide judgment dated 02.11.2006 and the suit was revived.
From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the issues and recorded pro and contra evidence of the parties. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2015. Hence, this appeal.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and decree is against the law and facts of the case; that while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial Court has neither properly considered the evidence of the parties nor decided all the issues, as such, the same is the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence as well as based on surmises and conjectures, as such, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree and has not committed any illegality or irregularity what to speak of any misreading and non-reading of the evidence; that the case of the appellant is of no evidence; that neither the appellant’s husband/donee himself appeared before the learned trial Court nor he produced the witnesses, in whose presence the property in question allegedly was gifted to him; that specific description with metes and bounds of the property so gifted to the appellant’s husband are not mentioned in the plaint; that the appellant’s husband filed the suit just to deprive the respondents from their legal shares in the inherited property of their father; that the respondents are suffering mental agony as well as financial loss since 1981 due to frivolous litigation, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
Further information regarding declaration for oral gift can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.