' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that respondent filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian. The contents of the plaint reveal that one Shah Ghafoor father of the original plaintiff/respondent and defendants/petitioners was owner of land measuring 300 Kanals, 8 marlas to the extent of 1/2 share, which is situated in Mouza Wir Singh Mohal Mojoki, Tehsil Chunian. The original owner died on 26-1-1976. The contents of the plaint further reveal that original owner late Shah Ghafoor solemnized two marriages, one with Mst. Latifan Bibi, who died before creation of Pakistan leaving behind two sons namely Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Siddique and one daughter Mst.
Wakeelan Bibi. The original owner also solemnized second marriage with Mst. Sardaran Bibi. The second wife gave birth to the present petitioners. The contents of the plaint further reveal that Muhammad Sharif died on 17-4-1985 and Mst. Wakeelan Bibi died on 10-12-2000. The inheritance Mutation No.2706 was attested and incorporated in the Revenue Record on 20-7-1985, which reveals that Shah Ghafoor had only contracted one marriage with Mst. Sardaran Bibi and family tree (Pedigree-table) shown on the said inheritance mutation was against facts and law because late Muhammad Sharif, respondent/plaintiff and Mst. Wakeelan Bibi were issue out of the wedlock of the original owner with Mst. Latifan Bibi. The contents of the plaint further reveal that on the basis of the aforesaid family tree shown on inheritance Mutation No.2706 dated 20-7-1985, inheritance Mutation No.2707, dated 20-7-1985 with regard to the land of late Muhammad Sharif (real brother of respondent/plaintiff) was incorporated of land measuring 25 Kanals, 7 Marlas. The contents of the plaint further reveal that the petitioners with the collusion of the Revenue Authorities got execution of inheritance Mutation No.2707 dated 20-7-1985 in their favour against facts and law because the petitioners/defendants are disentitled to be inherited property from the deceased Muhammad Sharif in the presence of his real brother Muhammad Siddique respondent/plaintiff.
The late Muhammad Sharif was also owner of property situated in Chak No.59/G.B. District Faisalabad and inheritance Mutation No.1572 was attested and incorporated in Revenue Record on 9-3-1988 according to which Mst. Lateefan Bibi was shown as wife of deceased Shah Ghafoor original owner and respondent/plaintiff was shown real brother of the deceased Muhammad Sharif and Mst. Wakeelan Bibi being real sister of late Muhammad Sharif. The contents of the plaint further reveal that the petitioner got execution of inheritance Mutations Nos.2706 and 2707 in the absence of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff asked the petitioners/defendants to get the inheritance Mutation No.2707 dated 20-7-1985 cancelled and to admit him real brother of Muhammad Sharif but they refused to accept.
' The petitioners/defendants filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the Mutations Nos.2706 and 2707 are against facts and law, forged, fictitious and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff as these mutations entered on the basis of wrong, pedigree if so its effect? OPP
(2) If issue No.1 proved as affirmative, then what is correct pedigree of the parties? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is false and baseless and same is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is wrongly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is correct valuation? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP
(7) Relief.
' The suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-5-2003. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chunian, who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15-7-2004, hence the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that both the Courts below erred in law to decide Issue No.6 against the petitioner, which relates that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is time- barred. The mutation was sanctioned on 20-7-1985 and the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on 12-9-2001. The contents of the plaint reveal that respondent/plaintiff has filed suit immediately from the date of knowledge, which, is not in consonance with the record as the four brothers secured the loan from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan in the year 1986, which was in the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiff. The suit of the respondent/plaintiff is highly time-barred as the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff after 16 years. He further submits that petitioners have placed on record documents of the loan secured by the four brothers from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan but this fact was not considered by the First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment and decree. He further submits that both the Courts below did not advei-t to Exh.P.3, therefore, impugned judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further urges that judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the whole record, therefore, judgment of both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4.#TS## It is admitted fact that the respondent/plaintiff has produced documentary evidence in the shape of copy of Mutation No.1572 which is exhibited as Exh.P.4, which reveals that mutation of inheritance of late Muhammad Sharif qua his land situated in District Faisalabad has been attested in favour of the respondent/plaintiff as brother and Mst. Wakeelan Bibi as sister and this documentary evidence was not belied by the petitioners through any reliable documentary evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that said mutation has never been challenged by the petitioners before any higher forum as is evident from cross-examination of D.W.1 who had admitted during the course of cross-examination that the said mutation was attested in the year 1988 and they had not challenged the same before any higher forum. It is also admitted fact on the record that respondent has produced copy of Mutation No.79/50, which was attested in 1950, which was modified according to the Shariat Act on 31-8-1960 which is exhibited as Exh.P.5, which reveals that Mst. Latifan Bibi alleged mother of respondent had got 1/8 share out of inheritance of original owner father of the parties, Shah Ghafoor. The respondent has also placed on record another copy of Mutation No.260, which was attested in the year 1965, which was exhibited as Exh.P.9, which reveals that 1/4 share has been given to Shah Ghafoor, father of the parties from the land of Mst.
Latifan Bibi mother of the respondent, which is situated in District Faisalabad. The family tree also shows that father of the parties Shah Ghafoor is her husband. It is settled principle of law that man can tell a lie but the documents cannot. Even otherwise after lengthy cross-examination by the petitioners of P.W.2 and P.W.3 nothing could be brought on record to negate the version of the respondent. It is admitted fact that Exh.P.5 and Exh.P.9 are the documents, which are more than 30 years old, which were exhibited without any objection by the petitioners before the trial Court, therefore, presumption of truth is attached to the said documents. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Ghulam Muhammad and others' case 1983 SCMR 849, Bahadar's case PLD 1961 Lah. 387, Surrendra Krishna Roy and another v. Mirza Muhammad Syed Ali Mutawali and others AIR 1936 PC 15 and Sarfraz Ahmad's case PLD 1985 Jour.
121.
It is also admitted fact that mother of the petitioners is alive, who did not appear in the witness-box meaning thereby the petitioners have withheld the best evidence, therefore, both the Courts below were justified to draw inference against the petitioners. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shah Nawaz and another v. Nawab Khan PLD 1976 SC 767. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "If I may say so with respect, it is rather surprising that the trial Court and the learned Judges in the High Court did not think it proper to whatever, for his failure to enter the witness-box in support of his case. The mere fact that the respondent resorted to the device of appointing his son to be his special attorney is no excuse for his own failure to enter witness-box."
It is also settled principle of law that Courts have generally refused to admit illegitimacy when legitimacy can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shah Nawaz's case (supra). The surrounding circumstances in the present case, as mentioned above, Exh.P.5 and Exh.P.9, which are not rebutted by the petitioners before the trial Court through any reliable evidence, therefore, findings of both the Courts below are in accordance with law after proper appreciation of evidence on record. Issue No.6 was also decided by both the Courts below after proper application of mind. It is better and appropriate to reproduce para. 8 of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court to resolve the controversy with regard to issue No.6:-- "So far as the contention of the appellants that the respondent's suit is barred by limitation is concerned, no doubt the disputed Mutation No.2707 was attested on 20-7-1985 and the respondent has challenged the same through suit on 13-9-2001 but at the same time, it is notable that the disputed Mutation No.2707 had been incorporated in absence of the respondent and he had contended that he got the knowledge of the same a few months ago. In view of illuminating observation made in PLD 1998 SC 1512 where one legal heir is deprived of his legal share from inheritance through inheritance mutation, no limitation runs against such entry. In the present case, the respondent had challenged the validity of the inheritance mutation with the contention that he has been deprived of his legal share from the inheritance of his real brother and all the estate of his real brother has been given to the appellants whom were not his legal heirs and as such it is futile to argue that the suit of the respondent was barred by limitation."
' Mere reading of the aforesaid finding, I do not find any infirmity or illegality committed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has decided the controversy after application of mind in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court as mentioned in para.
8. It is also admitted fact that respondent has challenged the vires of the inheritance mutation. The findings of both the Courts below is in consonance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1. The ratio of this case is as follows:-- "It was not necessary for the appellant to have sought the annulment of the mutation concerned.
The cause of action arose in her favour repeatedly when her inheritance rights was denied or usurped by the respondents' side at various stages. Accordingly the appellant's suit was not hit by the bar of limitation."
The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Fazal Jan v. Roshan Din and others NLR 1993 Rev.
8. It is settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below while exercising powers under section 115 of C.P.C. The parameters has been prescribed by the Privy Council since 1949, in N.S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madrass PLD 1949 PC 26. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising, jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision: If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly. From the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of the Privy Council was considered and followed by this Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mehmood 1985 CLC 657, which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment, dated 31-3-1985 passed in C.P. No.1146 of 1984, which was again reaffirmed and approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in the reported judgment Ghulam Qadir's case PLD 1988 SC 625. The learned counsel of the petitioners fails to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel of the petitioner also failed to point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgments of both the Courts below, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, which have been given after proper appreciation of evidence on record.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. 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.