' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant civil revision assailed the judgment/decrees dated 3-1- 1995 and 8-10-1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, whereby suit and appeal of the petitioners were dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction to the effect that Nazir Ahmad son of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and father of petitioners Nos.3 and 4 was owner of land measuring 15 Marlas duly detailed in the plaint, on whose death his Mutation of inheritance No,4851 was incorrectly sanctioned in the year 1987, illegally excluding from inheritance, his parents i.e, petitioners Nos.1 and 2. It was further pleaded that the petitioners were in exclusive possession of the suit property whereover they raised constructions out of their own expense, thus, they were exclusive owners of superstructure besides ownership of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 to the extent of 1/6th share each through succession as parents. They prayed that respondents be restrained through a decree for permanent injunction from interfering in their possession, by way of consequential relief.
3. The respondents being defendants in the suit, contested the same by filing of the written statement wherein certain preliminary objections of the suit being barred by limitation and estoppel etc. Were raised. On 22-5-1991, the learned counsel for the respondents got recorded statement to the effect that Imran Din and Mst. Najabat Bibi (petitioners Nos.1 and 2) were co- owners in the house in dispute which was constructed by the respondents and they have no objection about residence of the petitioners in the suit house and that they do not intend to partition the same. After recording of his statement, the learned Civil Judge who was seized of the suit adjudged the Mutation No,4851 of 1987 and directed its review by the Revenue Authorities and in view of respective claims of the parties about superstructure of the house, framed issues regarding ownership of the constructions, thereover. Parties led their respective evidence and the learned Civil Judge who was seized of the suit, after hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment decree dated 3-1-1995.
4. The petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide appellate judgment decree dated 8-10-1996. The petitioners thereafter filed instant revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record, of the same has now been placed for final hearing. Respondents were represented through their learned counsel namely Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate, but in spite of appearance of his name in the daily cause list of this Court, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, hence, they are proceeded against ex parte.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record, appended herewith. Besides the lawful reasons, which concurrently weighed with the two Courts below in holding that constructions of the house in question were joint and none of the parties could prove exclusive construction of it, out of his own expenses, the petitioners who were plaintiffs and had claimed that they constructed the house could not prove their stance. The petitioners only relied on oral evidence consisting of three witnesses and did not produce any document showing purchase of building material for the claimed construction of house. They also did not bring any lawful evidence regarding sanctioning of loan and its utilization for construction of the disputed house.
The petitioners could not claim any exclusive right over the superstructure of the house by merely producing a photocopy of the letter of National Bank showing that Nazir Ahmad deceased applied for the loan for raising construction. Though this document was not proved in accordance with law yet the same negated the stance of the petitioners as the loan was applied by deceased Nazir Ahmad and not by the petitioners. Oral evidence of the petitioners which consisted of statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 was of no value because P.W.2 could not stand to test of cross-examination by the respondents and P.W.3 verbally claimed to have worked as a labourer during construction, without any receipt etc. Uncorroborated self-serving statement of P.W.1 was not enough to prize the petitioners with the decree prayed. Scan of evidence on the file revealed that findings of both the Courts below regarding joint ownership of constructions of the house were not subject to any legal exception as those were returned after due appraisal of evidence on the file.
6. As regards right of inheritance of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 as parents of the propositus, they admittedly were entitled to 1/6th share each, out of the estate left by their son. Under "Hanfi Law" of Inheritance, followed by the deceased, after distributing this much share to father and mother of the deceased, rest was to be given to his wife and children. Admission D of the respondents vide statement dated 22-5-1991 about right of inheritance of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 was in accordance with law and consequently, their suit to this extent should have been decreed but a contrary view of both the Courts below dismissing their suit in its totality was not justified. The trial Court vide order 2-5-1991 though directed the Revenue officials to Review Mutation No,4851 of 1987, yet the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 should have been declared owners to the extent of 1/3rd share jointly in the house in disputed.
' For the reasons noted above, judgments/decreed of the two Courts below suffered from no illegality/irregularity except to the extent that the suit of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 should have been decreed, declaring them owner to the extent of their "Sharai" shares in the estate of late Nazir Ahmad, thus, this revision petition is, accordingly, partly accepted and the suit of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 is decreed declaring each of them (petitioners Nos.1 and 2) owners to the extent of 1/6th share each in the disputed house and the findings of the two Courts below regarding joint ownership of superstructure of the suit house, are maintained. There will be no order as to costs.