' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This civil revision assails judgments and decrees, dated 30-11- 2001 and 17-7-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, concurrently deciding lis against the petitioner.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that two suits for declaration, one by Muhammad Zaman petitioner and the other by the respondents, were filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khushab.
Petitioner in his plaint, claimed that he is owner in possession of 7/24 share from the legacy of Fateh Muhammad, as per detail given in his plaint. He averred that property in dispute was owned by one Fateh Muhammad, whose wife was Mst. Eakhtawar and that both husband and wife died simultaneously at the same time. According to him, Fateh Muhammad was succeeded by his two daughters namely, Bhag Shari and Fateh Bibi, besides him and Khan Muhammad collaterals of the propositus. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that Fateh Bibi daughter of Fateh Muhammad also died subsequently, without any male issue and on her death, her estate went to her daughter Fateh Khatoon, her husband Muhammad Khan, the petitioner and Khan Muhammad predecessor- ininterest of the respondents 2-11.
3. Suit by the petitioner was contested by the respondents being defendants in the suit, by filing their written statement, wherein they asserted that Mst. Bakhtawar was alive at the time of death of Fateh Muhammad. According to their claim Fateh Muhammad died in his agricultural land and when his dead body was brought to city where Mst. Bakhtawar was living she also died on receipt of the dead body of her husband. In this manner, respondents asserted that Mst. Bakhtawar inherited estate of Fateh Muhammad to the extent of 1/8 here Sharai share.
4. Respondent No.1 along with Fateh Khatoon filed the other suit, claiming that Fateh Muhammad died in his agricultural land and when was brought to home, his wife Mst. Bakhtawar was alive, who died at evening time, the same day, and thus was entitled to 1/8 share in the estate of Fateh Muhammad. According to their averments Mst. Bakhtawar was given her Sharai share in mutation No. 2323 regarding village Mitha Tiwana Shamali whereas she was deprived in Mutation No. 401 of village Mitha Tiwana Janubi and they on gaining knowledge of deprivation vide Mutation No. 401 filed the suit.
5. Petitioner being defendant in the suit denied assertions of respondents Nos.1 and 2, besides it, he raised certain preliminary objections, by filing his written statement. Both the above referred suits were consolidated by the learned trial Judge as those involved common questions and property vide his order, dated 23-6-1996. In view of controversial pleadings of the parties consolidated issues were framed and evidence was recorded. Learned trial. Judge who was seized of the matter at the conclusion of the trial of both these suits vide his consolidated judgment and decrees, dated 30-11-2001 dismissed the suit of the petitioner and decreed that of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
6. Petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court dated 30-11-2001 filed two separate appeals challenging judgment and decrees in both the suits but remained unsuccessful as those were dismissed on 17-7-2003. Petitioner, thereafter filed the instant revision petition challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees or the two Courts below wherein respondents 1,2,9,12 to 14 and 16 in response to notice by this Court have appeared through counsel (Mr. Amir Khan Niazi Advocate) whereas the other respondents in spite of their service have opted not to appear and defend this petition, hence they are proceeded against ex parte .
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Fateh Muhammad and his wife Mst. Bakhtawar died simultaneously, at one time and in this manner Mst. Bakhtawar was not entitled to any share in the estate of the deceased Fateh Muhammad. He further submitted that petitioner's father along with Khan Muhammad being brothers of Fateh Muhammad inherited to the extent of 1/3 share being collaterals and remaining 2/3 share devolved on his daughters namely Fateh Bibi and Bhag Bhari (respondent No.1 and mother of respondent No.2). He strenuously supported sanctioning of mutation No.401 regarding village Mitha Tiwana Janubi and asserted that it was rightly sanctioned, whereas the other mutation No.2323 showing Mst. Bakhtawar as widow of Fateh Muhammad of village Mitha Tiwana Shamali is not correct. He referred to death certificates of Fateh Muhammad and Mst. Bakhtawar to show that both of them died simultaneously on one and the same day. He further elaborated his arguments by saying that suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2 has incorrectly been decreed, whereas it deserved dismissal and suit of the petitioner should have been decreed.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents refuted the assertions of the petitioner, supported the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and urged that evidence on the file prove that Fateh Muhammad died earlier to Mst. Bakhtawar, who died many hours later than him and she being alive at the time of death of Fateh Muhammad was rightly given her Sharai share in the estate of her husband Fateh Muhammad. He further contended that mere entries of death of both Fateh Muhammad and Mst. Bakhtawar on the one day, does not prove that they died simultaneously at one moment. According to him, these documents, as well, do not negate stand taken by the respondents, which is factually correct and more natural. He further elaborated his arguments by urging that both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, on the basis of their appraisal of evidence, which is not shown to be contrary to the evidence on the file and this appraisal, even if erroneous, cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction of this Court because reappraisal is not permissible here.
9. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. The simple dispute between the parties is as to whether Mst. Bakhtawar was alive at the time of death of her husband or not. If Mst. Bakhtawar died subsequent to the death of her husband Fateh Muhammad, then she was entitled to inherit estate of her husband to the extent of 1/8 share and if both of them died simultaneously, naturally there was no occasion for Mst. Bakhtawar to inherit anything from the estate of Fateh Muhammad.
Consolidated proceedings were taken in suit of the petitioner and he while appearing as his own witness (P.W.1), admitted that Fateh Muhammad died at his Dera and he gained knowledge of his death when his dead body was brought to his house situated in city. Petitioner also could not deny rather admitted that Mst. C Bhag Bhari was present at the dera when Fateh Muhammad died.
Petitioner very frankly conceded that he cannot tell that who out of two died earlier. P.W.2. (Hamid Nawaz) made a similar statement by saying that both husband and wife died on one night and their dead bodies were brought to village, but could not tell who out of them died earlier . In his cross-examination, he stated that Mst. Bhag Bhari along with her daughter, was present when dead bodies were buried. In this manner, petitioner could not prove that death of Fateh Muhammad and Mst. Bakhtawar was instant and simultaneous. Mst. Bhag Bhari who, as admitted by all the P.Ws., was present at the place of incident, appeared as D.W.1 and stated that her father Fateh Muhammad died at Dera in her presence and she closed his mouth and brought his dead body, to home, where Mst. Bakhtawar was living. She further categorically stated that when dead body of her father was brought, her mother died of heart attack/shock. In her cross-examination, she gave specific time of death of her father as Degarwela and that of her mother in the morning. It is also in her statement that Janaza prayers and funeral of both of her parents were performed together.
10. Though death entries of both Fateh Muhammad, and Mst. Bakhtawar were produced as Exh. P.1 and Exh. P.2, but both these were entered one and the same day. Death of Fateh Muhammad was entered at serial No. 136 and that of Mst. Bakhtawar was entered at serial No.137, but to my mind these documents are not of much help for resolving the controversy, especially in presence of un- rebutted statement of Mst. Bhag Bhari, which is more natural and appeals to common sense, besides it, statements of P.Ws lend support, though not directly but by implication. Another fact which could not be refuted by the petitioner is that Mst. Bakhtawar was .Given share in estate of Fateh Muhammad in one of the estate where he was owner.
11. For what has been discussed above, it is clear that both the Courts below have rightly returned the findings which are in consonance with the evidence on the file, out of their own appraisal of it, which cannot be reappraised in revisional jurisdiction of this Court and this controversy of reappraisal of evidence has already been put to rest by the Honourable Supreme Court by holding that revisional Court cannot do this activity, in the cases of Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others (1994 SCM R 818), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291), Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others (1997 SCM R 1139), Mst. Ameer Begum v.
Muhammad Naeem Khan and another (PLD 2000 SC 839) and Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Salim and 27 others (2001 SCM R 1493). Both the Courts below have committed no illegality or irregularity as envisaged by section 115, C.P.C., in absence of which no interference can be Made. This revision petition having no merit in it, is dismissd with no order as to costs.