JUDGMENT FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.- The petitioners seek leave to appeal from judgment dated 13-10- 2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 1443-D of 1987.
2. The petitioners instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents in that they were entitled to inherit the suit land of their mother late Mst. Ghogan along with the respondents and that the mutation No. 143 of inheritance as originally sanctioned on 13-3-1971 in favour of the both the parties was valid. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Kasur. By judgment and decree dated 31-3-1982 whereby the orders dated 22-11-1974, 30-8-1975 and 7-12-1978 passed by the Revenue authorities were declared to be illegal, void and ineffective qua the rights of the petitioners. The appeal of the respondents there-against was dismissed, by the Additional District Judge, Kasur, by judgment and decree dated 8-9-1987. Therefore, the respondents preferred Civil Revision No. 1443- D of 1987 which was allowed by the High Court. The judgments of the Trial Court as well as that of the first Appellate Court were set aside. Consequently, the civil suit of the petitioners was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that late Mst. Ghogan was proved by evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to be the real mother of the petitioners late Mst. Shakoori and Battu as well as the respondent Mst. Bassi and late Mst. Mehmood, (predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 7).
Therefore, mutation No. 143 was rightly decided by the Revenue Officer on 13-3-1971, favour of all the legal heirs of late Mst. Ghogan. The same was wrongly set aside/reviewed by order dated 22-11- 1974, 30-8-1975 and 7-12-1978 by the Revenue authorities. The petitioners, predecessor-in-interest of late Mst. Shakoori and late Mst. Battu, were entitled to inherit the suit land in village Have Khushal Singh, Tehsil and District Kasur, owned by their mother late Mst. Ghogan. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court had decided the case on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record but their judgments were reversed by the High Court without there being any misreading and non-reading of evidence on record.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly the suit land was self- acquired property of late Mst. Ghogan who was the mother of respondent No. 8 and late Mst. Mehmood (predecessor- in-interest) of the respondents Nos. 1 to 7) and not of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners could not inherit the suit property of late Mst. Ghogan The High Court had passed the impugned judgment after proper scanning the evidence of the parties.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that the petitioners had produced P.W.-1 Muhammad Yasin Khan, who was Lambardar of the village Takri Brahmin in India where Late Mst. Ghogan, had been living in India and left her land in lied of which the suit land was allotted to her. He categorically stated that Mst. Shakoori and Batu was the real daughters of late Mst. Ghogan. Similarly, Yousaf Khan, P.W.-2 also hailed from the same village in India who also stated that late Mst. Ghogan had four daughters namely late Mst. Shakoori Batu, Mst. Bassi and Mehmood. The evidence of both the witnesses was quite relevant as they belonged to the same place of late Mst. Ghogan in India. The mere fact that P.Ws, were not sure about the names of the fore-fathers of the parties or of Mst.
Ghogan would not be sufficient to disbelieve them. The Trial Court as well as the firstAppellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence of the parties. The leamed High Court seems to have fallen into error in reversing the findings of the both the Courts below in exercise of revisional power conferred by Section 115, CPC by appreciation of evidence without there being non-reading and misreading of material evidence on the part of the Courts below, ln our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is not sustainable at law.
6. For the- foregoing reasons, this petition is . Converted into appeal and the same is allowed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 13-10-2000 of the leamed High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 1443-D of 1987 is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 31-3- 1982, passed by the Civil Judge, Kasur as well as judgment and decree dated 8-9-1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kasur, are restored. However, there shall be no order as to costs.