' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.---This revision petition assails the findings pertaining to Mutation No, 7207 dated 19-5-1981 of the inheritance of one Dost Muhammad son of Sher Khan in favour of the defendants, now respondents in connection with land measuring 4-1/2 Kanals comprised in Khasra No,210, Khatooni No,660, Square No,307, Killa No,5 in Purana Bhalwal Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha.
2. The case of the plaintiffs was that Dost Muhammad, their paternal uncle, belonged to Shia sect and died issueless, whereas Muhammad Nazir, respondent-defendant, who posed himself to be son of their father, was in fact the issue of Mst. Phalan, who was firstly married to another person and, he was not progeny of Muhammad Khan, their father, therefore, was not their brother. So far as Mst. Sakina Bibi, widow of Dost Muhammad was concerned, it was alleged in the plaint that after the death of Dost Muhammad, she performed a second Nikah. Regarding Nasir it was alleged that he was a grandson of Dost Muhammad but his father expired prior to the demise of Dost Muhammad, however, he was impleaded as a pro forma defendant. That the petitioners challenged Mutation No,7202 dated 19-5-1981, sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Nazir and Mst.
Sakina that they were not entitled to get any share of inheritance and the petitioners were the sole legal heirs of their paternal uncle Dost Muhammad.
3. The suit was decreed on 9-12-1991 by the learned Civil Judge at Bhalwal.
4. However, when the matter went into appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, upturned the findings vide his judgment dated 17-12-1995.
5. This Court had opportunity of going through both the judgments. In his judgment, the learned Additional District Judge, made the following observations in paragraph 11 to 14.
"11. In view of the above referred list of the evidence, I have reached to the conclusion that the findings of the learned trial Court, on the subject that Dost Muhammad, was Sunni by sect, are correct and need no interference on my part. I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of the respondent/ plaintiff, in this regard is very weak and no reliance can be made upon it. In the circumstances, it is held that the Mutation No,7207, dated 19-5-1981, was rightly sanctioned and the purchase of the property by Muhammad Shafi, from Mst. Sakina, and similarly the purchase of property by Khalil from Nasir, is valid and now they are legal owners of the property.
12. As regards the findings of learned trial Court regarding declaring Muhammad Nazir, respondent, not the son of Muhammad Khan, are erroneous, learned trial Court misread the evidence and ignored the documentary evidence produced by the appellant Abdul Khalid who had purchased the property from him. Oral evidence available on record in this regard, is the statement of Muhammad Bakhsh (P.W.5) who is an employee of Noon Sugar Mills. Bhalwal. He stated before the Court that Nazir Ahmed was also employed there and according to the record of Noon Sugar Mills, his father's name was Muhammad Khan. He further deposed that Nazir Ahmed had been serving from 1-11-1974 till 21-9-1986. He placed on record a certificate issued by General Manager of Mills in which the name of the father of Nazir, is mentioned as Muhammad Khan. The certificate is signed by General Manager whereas Muhammad Bakhsh (D.W.5) being the employee of Mills has verified the signature and has stated that record brought by him is correct. It is to be noted that he had also produced before the Court personal file of Nazir. Besides of other oral evidence, regarding the fact that Nazir, was son of Muhammad Khan, father of respondent/plaintiff, another important document i.e, voter list has been placed on record as Exh.D.8 which clearly indicates that Nazir was son of the said Muhammad Khan. Register Haqdaran Zamin Exh.D.5, as well as attested site-plan Exh.P.6 is also proof to the effect that Nazir is the son of said Muhammad Khan and was also entitled to inherit the property, which he has also sold out to Abdul Khalid, appellant. Learned trial Court did not give any weight to these documents and decide the matter against Abdul Khalid without any cogent reason. Respondents/plaintiffs were totally failed to prove through any document that Mst. Phallan was previously married to some other person and Nazir is the son of that person. No Nikahnama or birth certificate has been adduced by them to this effect. In the circumstances, the findings of learned trial Court to the extent that Muhammad Nazir was not the son of Muhammad Khan, are hereby reversed and it is held that he was son of Muhammad Khan, who is the father of the present respondents/plaintiffs and therefore, he is their step-brother, i.e, from second wife of their father. Result would be that issue is decided against the respondents/plaintiffs.
13. As regards limitation, valuation of the land, and its maintainability as well as cause of action is concerned, no cogent evidence has been brought on record by the appellant Abdul Khalid and the remaining defendant/respondents. It can also not be said that they are entitled for special costs, hence, Issues Nos.2 to 5 and 7, are decided against the appellant/ defendant.
14. As regards estoppel against respondents/plaintiffs to bring the suit and the fact that they have not come to the Court with clean hands is concerned, I have taken the judicial notice of the fact because no issue regarding res judicata has been framed. Perusal of some document which are exhibited on file, would show that they have previously instituted a suit regarding same issue, which was dismissed. In my opinion, they are estopped by their own words and conduct and have not come before the Court with clean hands. Written statement filed by Muhammad Nazir has disclosed these facts but I am unable to understand that why the learned trial Court ignored to frame the issue regarding the res judicata which certainly applied in this case. In the circumstances, I decide Issues Nos.1 to 6 against the respondents/ plaintiffs."
6. This Court agrees with these findings instead of the findings on the same fact recorded by the learned trial Court and finds no merits in this revision petition which is dismissed.