' This civil revision assails judgments and decrees dated 20-4-1993 and 22-5-1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Liaqatpur, respectively, concurrently deciding lis against the petitioners.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction as a consequential relief against the petitioners and respondent No.2 that she is owner in possession of the suit land detailed in the plaint on account of Haqul Mehar and the defendants have no right, title or interest therewith. She also prayed that adverse entries in the Revenue Record, being contrary to facts may be rectified. She also prayed for permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendants from interfering in her lawful possession over the property and prohibiting them from transferring it to any body else in any manner whatsoever. The case of the respondent No.1 was that she was married with respondent No.2 on 14-2-1986, who at that time, got land from his father Rahim Bakhsh by way of "Tamleek" and transferred the same in her favour as dower and since then she is in possession of it, but refusal of petitioners and respondent No.2 to get this land formally transferred in her name, necessitated filing of suit.
3. Petitioner being defendants with respondent No.2 contested the suit raising certain preliminary objections 'regarding limitation and lack of cause of action in favour of respondent No.1 besides her approaching to the Court with unclean hands. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned trial Judge, who was seized of the matter, after doing the needful vide his judgment and decree dated 20-4-1993, decreed the suit of respondent No.l.
4. Petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court dated 20-4-1993 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District. Judge, but remained unsuccessful as it was dismissed on 22-5-1999.
Thereafter petitioners filed instant revision petition. Respondents, in response to notice by this Court, in spite of their service, opted not to appear. They were informed regarding fixation of case under postal cover, but none has appeared to defend this petition, hence they are proceeded against ex parte.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since claim of respondent No.1 was based on dower, the only Court, which had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, was Family Court, thus the decrees passed by the two Courts below are without jurisdiction. He further contended that claim with regard to payment of dower could not have been entertained by the Civil Court as the same is triable by the Family Court being mentioned in Schedule appended with the Family Courts Act, 1964.
6. I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. Suit of respondent No.1 primarily was based on Nikahnama Exh.P. 3 and "Tamleek Nama" Exh.P.4, which were duly proved by the witnesses. Executant of Exh.P.4 (petitioner No.1) while appearing as his own witness as D.W.I could not deny its execution and simply showed his unawareness about this document. A suit on the basis of title derived from petitioner No.1 through Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 could only be tried by the Civil Court and there was nothing bad with the institution of the suit. Had the suit by respondent No.1 been for recovery of dower amount, no doubt, the objection of the petitioner would have been relevant, but the tenor of plaint shows that it was a simple suit for declaration based on above-referred documents. Both the Courts below after a proper scan of evidence and after due appraisal of it, found that respondent No.1 was transferred land in question by father of respondent No.2, who lived his life even after seven years of execution of Exh.P.4 and did not challenge it before any competent Court. Similarly, respondent No.2 who married respondent No.1, being well aware of transfer of land in question by his A father, did not make any effort for cancellation of document transferring land to respondent No.1 though he asserted in these proceedings that Exh.P.4 is forged. None of the petitioners or respondent No.2 ever initiated any kind of criminal proceedings for falsely preparing and forging document, transferring property in the name of respondent No.
1. Besides the evidence of marginal witnesses of document under discussion, its scribe appeared as P.W.2., who performed Nikah between the respondents and categorically stated that Exh.P.4 was scribed by him on the dictates of Rahim Bakhsh father of respondent No.2 and was signed by them simultaneously. P.W.2 also affirmed offer and acceptance under Exh.P.4 and transfer of possession in favour of respondent No.1 under the "Tamleek" petitioners could not shatter the veracity of the witnesses of respondent No.1 inspite of exhaustive and lengthy cross-examination, whose statements get support from documentary evidence produced by respondent No.1 in form of copies of Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 (Exh.P.l) Khasra Girdawari (Exh.P.2) and Nikahnama (Exh.P.3).
7. For what has been discussed above, it is obvious that both the Courts below passed concurrent judgments and decrees in consonance with the record. They have not committed any illegality or irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court, thus this revision petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed. Parties, however, are left to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.