IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT LARKANA
CivilR. A. S-44of 2014 : Mst. Haseena Begum vs.
Ghulam Abbas &Others
For the Applicant : Mr. Imdad Ali Mashori, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Abro, Advocate
Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General
Date of hearing : 10.02.2022
Date of order : 10.02.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J.The applicant had filed a suit for possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction, claiming entitlement to property as a consequence of the same having been gifted to her by her eight year old child. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide Judgment dated 10.11.2011 and the appeal was also dismissed vide Judgment dated 12.03.2014.
2. Per applicant’s counsel the evidence had not been properly appreciated by the Courts below and there remainedto be reconciled confusion with regard to the veracity of identity of a third person, hence, this revision application. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the same has been rendered in appreciation of evidence and in accordance with law.
3. Heard and perused. The learned Trial Court was pleased to appreciate the issues framed and the evidence led and it is appropriate to illuminea concluding paragraph in order to illustrate the findings:
“In the light of facts, reasons, evidence and circumstances discussed above, it is very much clear that the plaintiff has filed the instant suit without any cause of action. The plaintiff has no legal title or character upon suit property. During course of evidence it has been brought on record that plaintiff had not given birth to any child and she remained issue less. As she has not given birth to any child, hence the question of purchasing of the suit property on the name of her son does not arise at all. Moreover the plaintiff has failed to prove before this Court that actually the gift made by her son in her favour is valid and legal because it is settled that a minor cannot made a gift of his property to any one, under the Mohammadan Law. Therefore, it has been brought on record that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove her case before this court. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed by her in this case.”
4. The learned Appellate Court upheld the findings of the learned Trial Court primarily on the basic premise that it was for the applicant to prove her claim before the Trial Court and upon failure thereof no extraneous issue could be found to influence/dislodge the findings.
5. This Court has considered the respective judgments as well as evidence on record identified by the learned counsel and some of the pertinent observations are recorded hereinbelow. At page 137 of the Court file is the admitted evidence of the witness of the applicant, before the trial Court, whereby it has been deposed that the plaintiff remained issueless and did not give birth to any child. The Divorce Deed available at page 135 of the Court file also corroborates the same contention in the sixth line of its second page. The Court’s attention was also drawn to the purported gift deed, which even if considered would demonstrate that it had been executed by an eight years old child,notwithstanding the two judicial pronouncements whereby existence of the said child / person could not have been proved.
6. The original judgment as well as judgment in appeal appear to have considered the record and the law and no infirmity in respect thereof has been identified to this Court.It is settled law that in the presence of concurrent findings, coupled with preponderance of claim supported by evidence, a revisional court ought not to interfere even if another view was possible. Reappraisal of evidence was even otherwise undesirable in revisional proceedings[1].
7. This Court has considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability to cite a single ground based upon which the jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no suggestion that the impugned judgments are either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity. It is trite law[2] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.
8. It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the impugned judgment, meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE