MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 12-6-1975, Sardar Wali Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit against the petitioners. In the plaint it was stated that the land and the house mentioned in detail in para.1 of the plaint, was owned by Sardar Azmatullah Khan, who died on 15-8-1974 and was survived by the plaintiff as brother and the petitioners as daughters. He was a Sunni Muslim and after settling 2/3 share of the daughters residue of 1/3 has devolved upon him. It was complained that the petitioners have mutations of inheritance attested in various revenue estates showing the deceased to be "Shia" and thus, excluding the plaintiff. The appellants in their written statement admitted that the property was owned by their late father as also relationship between the plaintiff and Azmatullah Khan, deceased. However, they asserted that he was a "Shia". A replication was filed. On 3-5-1978, following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit is incompetent because of not filing of appeal against the impugned mutation? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff had no cause of action and locus standi to bring the suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is insufficiently valued for the purpose of court-fee, if so, what is the proper valuation? OPD
(4) Whether Sardar Azmatullah Khan was Shia Muslim by faith? OPD
(5) Relief.
I may note here that' the issues were framed in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and till date no objection is on record as to the framing of the said issues. The case was adjourned to 23-9-1978 for evidence of the appellant. On this date, an application was filed and the case was adjourned for reply to 12-10-1978. It was noted that a compromise has not been effected and the case was adjourned to 13-2-1979. On this date it was noted that the evidence of the appellants is not present and list of witnesses has also not been filed. A written application for adjournment was filed which was opposed. The case was adjourned to 13-2-1979. It was noted that the appellants wish to file an application for filing of list of witnesses. This application was filed and allowed on 20- 4-1980 and the case was adjourned to 9-9-1980 for evidence of the appellants. On this date, learned Presiding Officer was on leave. On 29-10-1980, it was reported that a compromise is being effected. Ultimately on 8-7-1981, it was reported that compromise has not been effected and the case was adjourned for recording of evidence of the appellants to 11-1-1982. On this date evidence was absent. In fact none of the appellants was present as well. Last opportunity was granted for 6- 7-1982. On this date neither any witness was present nor any of the appellants was there. Request of the learned counsel for adjournment was refused and the evidence was closed and the suit was decreed. First appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, Sahiwal on 27-2-1984.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants with reference to the case Abdul Shakoor v. Abdul Rasul PLD 1963 (W.P.) Kar. 356, argues that since there was no material on record to enable the learned trial Court to decide the case forthwith, the suit could not have been dismissed only for the default of the appellants to produce the evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, rely on the case Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647, to urge that in the circumstances of the present case where burden to prove all the issues was upon the appellants their failure to lead evidence could have only resulted in dismissal of the suit.
3. I have gone through the trial Court records. I have also' reproduced above the entire proceedings that took place in the learned trial Court. There is no manner of doubt in my mind that sufficient 13 opportunities were granted to the appellants to lead evidence but they failed to avail the same.
Now coming to the said contention of the learned counsel, the case of the deceased plaintiff was that Sardar Azmat Ullah deceased was a Sunni while the case of the petitioners was that he was Shia by faith. The presumption in the sub-continent being that a Muslim, unless proved to the contrary, is Sunni, learned trial Court very correctly called upon the appellants to prove issue No.4 on merits of the case. Other three issues pertain to the legal objections which were again sans any evidence. Be that as it may, learned Court of appeal has dealt with the same. However, to my mind in absence of any evidence to rebut the said presumption, the suit was correctly decreed by the learned trial Court and no error of jurisdiction stands pointed out. Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed but with no orders as to costs. The records be returned back.