Instant civil revision assailed appellate judgment/decree dated 12.3.1997, whereby appeal filed by Mst. Kubra Bibi deceased was accepted and by reversing judgment of the trial Court her suit for declaration was decreed.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that Mst. Kubra Bibi deceased filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was real daughter of Syed Kamarat Ali son of Syed Hussain Shah and thus was entitled to inherit the estate left by him. She challenged Mutation No, 133 sanctioned on 17.5.1984 pleading that her father Syed Karamat Ali was governed by Shia law of inheritance, where-under she was entitled to 7/32 share, measuring 7 kanals 5 marlas. According to her, petitioners in order to deprive her of hereditary rights, got mutation of inheritance of her father, sanctioned stealthily, thus the same may be declared as void, collusive and ineffective qua her proprietary rights.
3. Petitioners being defendants in the suit, contested the same by filing their written statement and besides refuting averments in the plaint, denied that Mst. Kubra Bibi was real daughter of Syed Karamat AR. They also averred that the deceased plaintiff/respondent was not from the womb of Fatima Bibi daughter of Imam Ali Shah, hence she had no cause of action to file the suit.
Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence.
The learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter, after doing the needful, out of his appraisal of evidence, dismissed the suit vide his judgment/decree dated 26.4.1992.
4. Mst. Kubra Bibi feeling herself aggrieved of judgment/decree of the trial Court, filed an appeal befde the learned Additional District Judge, where she succeeded as the same was accepted and her suit was decreed, as prayed vide judgment/decree dated 12.3.1997. Petitioners thereafter, filed instant revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record has how been placed for final determination. Respondents were represented through Mr. Muhammad Sharif Khokhar, Advocate, who lastly appeared in this case on 24.3.2005 and thereafter opted to remain absent inspite of the fact that his name appeared in daily cause list of this Court. Case was repeatedly called but no body appeared on behalf of the respondent, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. The most crucial point for determination was reflected in Issue No, 1 framed by the trial Court, which was to the effect that Mst. Kubra Bibi was daughter of Syed Karamat Ali and Mst.
Fatima Bibi and thus was entitled to inherit the property left by Syed Karamat Ali. Onus of proof of Issue No, 1 was placed on the shoulders of Mst. Kubra Bibi, who in order to discharge the same examined four witnesses including her own statement as PW.4. She categorically deposed that her father was Syed Karamat Ali and name of her mother was Mst. Fatima Bibi, whereas name of her maternal grandfather was Muhammad Hussain Shah. She detailed in her statement her entire relationship and traced life of her father during which he entered into two ties of marriage. She assertively deposed that her father was a follower of Shia sect and maternal grandfather, as well as, paternal grandfather were also the followers of the same sect. According to her deposition her father Syed Karamat Ali died 6/7 years ago. She was subjected to extensive/lengthy cross- examination by the petitioners but veracity of her statement could not be shattered. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to pick minor discrepancies to contend that statement of Mst. Kubra Bibi was not of worth reliance and did not furnish a solid basis for grant of decree prayed. Mst. Kubra Bibi deceased was not much educated and was undeniably a household lady who made statement out of her memory after lapse of a longtime, thus the discrepancies/contradictions attempted to be picked were of no value as those were not enough to deprive her from inheritance, if otherwise proved.
6. Mst. Kubra Bibi deceased besides her own statement examined Qalb-e-Hussain Shah PW. 2, who was related to both the parties. He deposed that Syed Karamat Ali Shah solemnized two marriages and his first wife was Mst. Fatima Bibi, who was his real sister. According to this witness, Mst. Fatima Bibi wife of Syed Karamat Ali was daughter of Muhammad Hussain Shah and was real mother of the respondent. This witness was also cross-examined at length by the petitioners but nothing material could be extracted from him. Another witnesses Syed Tasadduq Hussain Shah was produced as PW. 3, who was also related to the parties. This witness deposed that Syed Karamat Ali deceased was his paternal uncle. According to this witness Mst Fatima Bibi daughter of Muhammad Hussain Shah was married to Syed Karamat Ali Shah son of Hussain Shah and was mother of the respondent. This witness also traced pedigree of the parties and inspite of remaining under cross-examination for quite some time did not leave the stance taken in his examination-in- chief. Petitioners attempted to displace proof brought on the file by the deceased Mst. Kubra Bibi, which revealed their admissions to the effect that Syed Karamat Ali had two wives out of whom one was Mst. Fatima Bibi and as per their case, she was daughter of Imam Shah and not that of Muhammad Hussain Shah as claimed by the respondent. All the DWs though had deposed that they knew Syed Karamat Ali deceased father of Mst. Kubra Bibi, but none of them was so closely related to the parties, as the witnesses produced by the respondent. Under Article 64 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 statements of the witnesses as to relationship of one person to another, being member of the family or otherwise, having special means of knowledge, are relevant.
Analysis of this provision of law shows that statements of persons closely related to the persons whose relationship is to be decided, are of much more value as compared to the persons, who are not related to them and simply knew them, without disclosing their source of knowledge. Scan of evidence, revealed that witnesses produced by the respondent were of much more value having relationship with the parties and special means of knowledge, being members of the family and deserved much more credence over the witnesses produced by the petitioners. Appellate Court in correct appraisal of evidence according to the law applicable, rightly concluded the lis, without committing any illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court, except he granted the respondent decree as prayed for without looking into prayer in the plaint, whereby share in the estate of deceased Syed Karamat Ali to the extent of 7/32 share was claimed by Mst.
Kubra Bibi deceased, but according to Shia Law of Inheritance, which is similar to that of Hanfi Law, when the propositus is succeeded by widow, sons and a daughter, Syed Karamat Ali was succeeded by a widow, who was entitled to 1/8 share and three sons, who were to get 3/4 share and the residue equivalent to 1/8 share was to be inherited by the deceased Mst. Kubra Bibi instead of 7/32, hence except this modification appellate judgment admits no other exception.
7. For the reasons noted above, appellate judgment/decree is maintained with the modification that Mst. Kubra Bibi deceased was entitled to 1/8 share out of estate of her father Syed Karamat Ali.
Petitioners could not make out commission of any illegality/irregularity in terms of Section 115 CPC, hence this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.