' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.-This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25-3- 2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha, upholding the judgment/decree of the learned trial Court dated 3-5-1992.
[1]. Plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit on 9-9-1987 for declaration to the effect that they were legal heirs of Mst. Rasoolan pre-deceased daughter of Murad (deceased) and entitled to their share in the agriculture land measuring 220-1/2 Kanals, left by their maternal grandfather, Murad. The mutation of Inheritahce No. 322 dated 16-12-1979riving them of their share was illegal, collusive, based on fraud and misrepresentation. The further sale by defendant No.2 to defendant No.3, was also illegal. It was averred in the plaint that Murad son of Khuda Yar died in 1968. His mutation of inheritance was attested in 1979. The plaintiffs being daughters of predeceased Mst. Rasoolan and defendants Nos.l and 2 being sons of pre-deceased Sardara, (both daughter and son of Murad) were entitled to their share in the inheritance of Murad (deceased). However, the defendants in collusion with the Revenue authorities got the mutation of Inheritance No.322 illegally attested in their favour. The defendant No.2 further sold his share to the defendant No.3, which too was against law. The defendant/respondent contested the suit raising preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred and the plaintiffs had no locus standi. On merits it was alleged that the plaintiffs had no blood relationship with Murad (deceased). The incorrect pedigree- table has been givep.
' Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are jointly owner in possession of the suit- land with the defendant as being legal heirs of Murad deceased? OPP.
(2) Whether the mutation of Inheritance No. 322 dated 16-12-1979 attested in favour of defendant is illegal, void, collusive, fictitious based on fraud and misrepresentation and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(5-A) Whether the defendants have paid any proprietary value of the suit-land? If so, to what effect? OPD.
(5-B) Whether the defendant No.3 is the bona fide purchaser of the suit- land for reasonable consideration? OPD.
(6) Relief.
' The learned trial Court after recording the evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents on 3-5-1992. The defendants/petitioners remained unsuccessful in their appeal before the learned Additional District Judge on 25-3-2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have not decided the case in its true perspective. He referred to succession certificate Exh.D.14, in which Muhammad Yar, Mst.
Bharai and two others were declared as legal heirs of Murad son of Khuda Yar. He urged that the said certificate was never challenged by the plaintiffs before any forum. He also referred to birth certificate of Mst. Rauf an Exh. P.9 showing that originally it was Suban which has been crossed out and instead Rauf an was mentioned. He maintained that Ghulam Muhammad P.W.l is related to respondents and thus is interested witness. He further argued that the respondents were daughters of one Salhi and not of Mst. Rasoolan. The Courts below have misread the evidence.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgments.
5. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The case set out by the plaintiffs in their plaint and in their evidence is that they are daughters of Mst. Rasoolan, the pre-deceased daughter of Murad. The defendants 1 and 2/petitioners are sons of Sardara, also pre-deceased son of Murad.
Mst. Rasoolan is entitled to inherit the land along with Sardara, her brother, D.W. 1 and D.W,2 deposed that Sardara, the father of the defendants/ petitioners was alive at the time of the death of Murad. This fact is belied by the mutation Exh.P.2 dated 16-12-1979 being relied by defendants/petitioners, which clearly shows that Sardara pre-deceased Murad. Even if Sardara is considered to be alive at the time of death of his father, Murad, still Mst. Rasoblan is entitled to inherit under section 4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The next question is whether Mst.
Rasoolan the mother of the plaintiffs was the daughter of Murad,, deceased. Mst. Farooqan, one of the plaintiffs appeared as P.W.2 and deposed that she and her sister Raufan are daughters of Mst.
Rasoolan, who was daughter of Murad. Mst. Rasoolan had a sister named Raji who died issueless.
The father of the defendants 1 and 2 and the mother of the plaintiffs were brother and sister. Both of them pre-deceased their father Murad. She further deposed that after the death of their mother Rasoolan, their father Manzoor married Mst. Salhi. She categorically stated that she and her sister were daughters of Mst. Rasoolan and not Mst. Salhi. She denied that they had knowledge about the withdrawal of the money from the bank by the defendants/ petitioners. P.W.1 deposed to the same effect. The case set up by the defendants is that the plaintiffs/respondents are daughters of Mst. Salhi (second wife of Manzoor) and not Rasoolan. This fact does not find any corroboration either from any document on the record or otherwise. The defendants 1 and 2/petitioners never entered in the witness-box to rebut the case of the plaintiffs/respondents. Only they could clear the position. There is nothing on thel record from which it can be inferred that the plaintiffs/respondents are not the daughters of Mst. Rasoolan. Both the Courts below have concurrently decided against the petitioners. I do not find any fallacy in the judgments of the Courts below. As far as the question that petitioner No.3 is the bona fide purchaser, suffice to say that the defendant No.2 could not alienate the share of the plaintiffs.
Defendant No.3 purchased only the share of the respondent No.2. No title regarding the share of plaintiffs passed to defendant No.3 P.W.2 categorically stated that they had no knowledge about the withdrawal of the money from the bank by the defendants. Even otherwise, she was not confronted With the alleged succession certificate. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 and 2 being daughters and sons of ,Mst. Rasoolan and Sardara respectively (the pre-deceased daughter and son of Murad) are entitled to receive the share which their mother and father would have received under section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
6. For what has been discuss above, this revision petition is dismiss leaving the parties to bear their own costs.