' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Through this writ petition, judgment and decree, dated 13-12-2006 passed by learned District Judge, Lodhran, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 3-7-2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Dunyapur, was dismissed, has been called in question.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Balqees Mai, respondent No,3, filed a suit for recovery of dower against the petitioner on 8-12-2004 in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Dunyapur, District Lodhran. In said suit it was claimed by Mst. Balqees Mai plaintiff that at the time of marriage, the present petitioner had agreed to give her four Kanals of land as dower. The petitioner contested said suit by filing written statement in which he did not deny the execution of above mentioned agreement in favour of the plaintiff, but he advanced the plea that the plaintiff/respondent No,3 had relinquished the claim of dower through agreement dated 5-8-2003. Pertinent to mention here that apart from the said suit, the respondent No,3 had filed two other suits for recovery of dowry and maintenance respectively. All the said suits including the suit filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights, were consolidated by the learned Judge, Family Court and disposed of vide consolidated judgment and decree, dated 3-7-2006. All the suits filed by the respondent No,3 including the suit for recovery of dower, were decreed in her favour. While deciding the suit for the recovery of the dower the learned Judge, Family Court held that the plaintiff had proved her case against the petitioner through the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, while the petitioner had failed to prove rather to produce the remission deed on the basis of which he had prayed for dismissal of suit. However, learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion that as the petitioner/defendant is not the owner of the land in question the suit could not be decreed to that extent. Nevertheless, after getting the said land evaluated through Patwari, the suit was decreed to the extent of Rs,1,00,000 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No,3. The said judgment and the decree has been maintained by the learned appellate Court.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the "Nikahnama" only dower amount of Rs,500 was fixed and as far as question of the relinquishment of the dower amount is concerned, he has relied upon an agreement dated 5-8-2003, whereby, the respondent No,3 had allegedly waived her right of dower.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could 'not persuade me to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as, he could not point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence on the basis of which the concurrent findings of the two Courts below can be disturbed. The claim of the respondent No,3/plaintiff that an 'agreement was executed by the petitioner in her favour, whereby, he had agreed to transfer land in favour of the respondent No,3 as dower, as supported by the fact that petitioner's written statement instead of denying plaintiff's claim of such agreement further builds upon it. This is because in his written statement petitioner did not deny that there was no such contract, instead advanced the plea that plaintiff/respondent No,3 had executed relinquishment deed in his favour, consenting not to demand dower from him. By filing said written statement he impliedly admitted execution of dower deed Exh.P.1. Therefore, there was no need for plaintiff to prove the execution of said document and the burden of proof shifted entirely on the shoulders of the petitioner/defendant to prove remission deed. But during the trial, the petitioner did not produce the agreement dated 5-8-2003 in the Court. On the other hand, the plaintiff/respondent No,3 proved her claim through oral as well as documentary evidence. The agreement dated 1-4-2003, whereby, the petitioner had agreed to transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff as dower was duly produced and proved as Exh.P.1. Besides appearing herself in the witness-box as P.W.1, she had produced Zulifiqar, stamp vendor as P.W.4, who was scribe of Exh.P.1. The petitioner failed to rebut said oral as well as documentary evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agreement dated 5-8-2003 could not be produced by the petitioner as the evidence of the petitioner was illegally closed, but in this regard he has failed to produce any material to support his contention.
6. Both the impugned judgments have been passed on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence and neither any illegality has been pointed out in the said judgments nor any jurisdictional error has been referred to. It is established law that the findings of the facts recorded by the Judge, Family Court cannot be interfered/up set, by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction which can only be exercised if the lower Court exceeds its jurisdiction or acts without its jurisdiction. High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction can neither substitute findings of facts recorded by Judge, Family Court nor can give its opinion regarding quality or adequacy of the evidence. The assessm ent and appraisal of evidence is the function of the Family Court which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in this regard. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the cases of Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522, Parveen Umar and others v. Sardar Hussain and others 2003 YLR 3097, Muhammad Ashiq v. Additional District Judge, Okara 2003 CLC 400 and Aqil Zaman v. Mst. Azad Bibi and others 2003 CLC 702.
7. The pith of all the discussion made above is that this petition is without any merit and consequently the same is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.