' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Through this single judgment I propose to dispose of the above title revision petition as well as the connected Revision Petition No,87 of 2004 titled Mst. Rehmat Bibi v.
Haji Allah Dewaya and others as both of the revision petitions arose out of two judgments of the subordinate Courts and involve common question of law and facts.
2. Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others have called in question in Civil Revision No,86 of 2004 the judgment and decree, dated 18-12-2003 of the Additional District Judge-I, D.I. Khan through which on accepting of the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside and the plaintiffs/respondents were granted a decree for declaration, possession of a house and recovery of the golden ornaments.
3. In Civil Revision No,87 of 2004 Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others are aggrieved from the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge-I, D.I. Khan dated 18-12-2003 vide which the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs was accepted and the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge-IX, D.I. Khan was set aside and plaintiffs/respondents were granted the decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the Shari share in the legacy left by Muhammad Manzoor husband of Mst. Lal Bibi alias Lalo comprising the land details of which have been given in the heading of the plaint.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Haji Allah Devaya and others successors-in-interest of Mst. Lal Bibi brought two suits for declaration to the effect that they are the legal heirs and are entitled to the legacy of Mst. Lal Bibi alias Lalo widow of Muhammad Manzoor according to their Shari share. It was alleged in the plaint that Mst. Lal Bibi was married to Muhammad Manzoor and he, during his life time had given in dower property consisting of one house and golden ornaments 5-1/2 Tolas and some silver ornaments weighing 22 Tolas in dower. These prayers are the subject matter of Civil Suit No,667/1 decided on 6-2-2003. It is alleged that as per dower deed Exh.P.W.1/1 the above mentioned articles and house have been given in dower to Mst. Lal Bibi aforesaid.
5. In Civil Revision No,87 of 2004 the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents namely Haji Allah Devaya and others filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they being the legal heirs of Mst. Lal Bibi alias Lalo widow of Muhammad Manzoor as per their Shari share in the legacy of deceased Mst. Lal Bibi. It was alleged that Mst. Lal Bibi was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Muhammad Manzoor and after his death she inherited 1/4th share in his inheritance and adverse entries as per inheritance Mutation No,16258 dated 28-8-1995 excluding Mst. Lal Bibi from inheritance is illegal, void and ineffective on their rights. The plaintiffs/respondents also prayed for permanent injunction that the petitioner/defendant should not interfere in their possession. As a consequential relief it was prayed that a decree for possession may also be passed in their favour in case they are not proved to be in possession.
6. The petitioners/defendants appeared before the Court. They contested the suit and submitted detailed written statement and out of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed with are the following :
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have got locus standi?
(3) Whether defendant No,1 has died before the institution of the present suit, therefore, the suit cannot be proceeded?
(4) Whether deceased Mst. Lal Bibi daughter of plaintiff who was divorced by Muhammad Manzoor deceased predecessor of the defendants during his life time?
(5) Whether deceased Muhammad Manzur have satisfied all claims of Mst. Lal Bibi deceased during his life time?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue?
(7) Whether the suit is incompetent in its present form?
(8) Whether the suit house cannot be legally transferred partially or in toto?
(9) Whether portion of the suit house was transferred by deceased Muhammad Manzur to deceased Mst. Lal Bibi during his life time?
(10) Whether the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Mst. Lal Bibi?
(11) Whether the deceased Mst. Lal. Bibi was a legal heir of deceased 4 Muhammad Manzur?
(12) Whether the inheritance Mutation No,16258 has been rightly and legally attested in favour of the defendants?
(13) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of dowry_ articles as mentioned in para.Bey of the heading of the plaint as prayed for?
(14) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of partition of the suit house as prayed for?
(15) Relief.
' Issues in Suit No,999/1 subject-matter of Civil Revision No,87 of 2005 are the following:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got a locus standi?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue by his own conduct?
(4) Whether the suit is incompetent in its present form?
(5) Whether Mst. Lal Bibi predecessor of the plaintiff was entitled for 1/4th share in the legacy of deceased Muhammad Manzur (who was the owner of the suit property).
(6) Whether Mst. Lal Bibi predecessor of the plaintiff was divorced by Muhammad Manzur during his life time, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the decree as prayed for?
(7) Whether the inheritance Mutation No,16258 dated 28-8-1995 is forged and fictitious?
(8) Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit-land?
(9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for?
(10) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for?
(11) Relief.
7. The parties led pro and contra evidence as they wished to produce and the learned trial Court after considering the data available on the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/respondents have failed to substantiate their case and vide judgments and decrees in Suit No,667/1 of 2001 decided on 6-2-2003 and that in Civil Suit No,666-A/1 of 2002 decided on 6-2- 2003 dismissed both the suits.
8. The plaintiffs/respondents filed two separate appeals against the judgments and decrees of the trial Court before the District Judge, D.I. Khan bearing Nos.48 and 49 of 2003 which came for hearing before Miss Zarqiah Sani, Additional District Judge-I, D.I. Khan and who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record accepted both the appeals on 18-12-2003 and while setting aside the judgments and decrees of the trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents as prayed for.
9. Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others petitioners/defendants have come up in two separate revisions to this Court.
10. Muhammad Mazhar, special attorney for the petitioners submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Court is not based on any sound appreciation of evidence. The overwhelming evidence on the record was not taken into consideration and thus, the learned Additional District Judge has fallen into an error by holding that the petitioners predecessor-in-interest namely Muhammad Manzoor had ever contracted a marriage with Mst. Lal Bibi, alias Lalu. In the alternative, it was submitted that in case there was any valid marriage, Mst. Lal Bibi was residing in separation because in the last days of the life of Manzoor he was ill and Mst. Lal Bibi was not residing with him and thus, she had been divorced by Manzoor her husband. It was also argued that once divorce is proved on the record, Mst. Lal Bibi was not entitled to any inheritance in the legacy of Muhammad Manzoor deceased, thus, no devolution of interest can be envisaged in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents. It was further contended that the alleged dower deed copy Exh.P.W.1/1 was unregistered document and was not admissible in evidence.
11. Muhammad Ramzan one of the respondents who appeared on pre-admission notice, submitted that it has been abundantly proved on the record that Mst. Lal Bibi alias Lalo was married to Muhammad Manzoor and she performed all her marital obligations and till his death she remained in the wedlock of Muhammad Manzoor. The dower deed executed by Muhammad Manzoor in favour of Mst. Lal Bibi Exh.P.W.1/1 had been proved on the record by the production of the scribe and the marginal witnesses of the deed and thus, the Appellate Court has rightly taken into consideration the execution of the deed Exh.P.W.1/1. It was also submitted that as Mst. Lal Bibi was the wife of Muhammad Manzoor they being issueless she was entitled to 1/4th share in the property left by Muhammad Manzoor and the respondents/ plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Mst. Lal Bibi her inheritance devolved on them and the exclusion of Mst. Lal Bibi from the inheritance mutation of Muhammad Manzoor was not warranted under the law and thus the Appellate Court had correctly taken into consideration the data availalile on the record and has rightly granted them the relief as prayed for vide judgments and decrees impugned in these revision petitions.
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and have gone through the record of the case.
13. Perusal of the record would reveal that the plaintiffs/respondents had produced the scribe of the deed copy Exh.P.W.1/1 as well as marginal witnesses of the deed namely Fazal-e-Qadir, Deed Writer, and Haji Mukhtiar Hussain P.W.4. They have proved the contents of the dower deed, the same was produced before the Court and photo copy was exhibited without any objection by defendants/petitioners. When a document is admitted in evidence without objection and the same is placed on record then no subsequent objection can be raised to its admissibility of a document at a later stage as held in National Bank of Pakistan, Bannu Branch through its Manager v. Syed Mir 1987 CLC page 1103.
14. The next contention of the petitioners that the dower deed is an unregistered document and without registration it could create no valid title in favour of Mst. Lal Bibi deceased is also without any substance. The dower deed through which the property either cash or kind or in the shape of immovable property, if given to a wife in lieu of dower is not compulsorily registerable as held in the cases of Fazlur Rehman v. Mst. Sosan Jan and others reported in 1989 SCMR 561 and in the case of Inayat Ullah v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar reported in 1989 SCMR 1871 in the case of Anwar Khan and 16 others v. Sahibzada and 3 others 1989 CLC 1327 and in the case of Muhammad Akram v. Farman Bibi PLD 1989 Lah.
200. So in view of the dictum laid down in the above quoted rules the Nikah Nama was not compulsorily registerable and will confer rights on Mst. Lal Bibi predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/ respondents.
15. Regarding the factum of marriage of Mst. Lal Bibi with Muhammad Manzoor abundant evidence was led by the respondents to prove the same on the record and in rebuttal no cogent and convincing evidence was brought on the record by the petitioners to dislodge the stand of the respondents. The petitioners/defendants produced D.W.1. Ghulam Hussain, Accountant M.C.
Paharpur, D.I. Khan, who produced the record with respect to the nomination filed by Muhammad Manzoor copy Exh.D.W.1/2 in which he nominated certain legal heirs to receive his pension benefits as he was an Octroi Moharrir in the said Municipal Committee and it was stated that the name of Mst. Lal Jan is not figuring in the nomination. So it was submitted that as Muhammad Manzoor deceased has not nominated Mst. Lal Bibi to receive share in the service benefits, so it should be presumed, that she had been divorced by her husband.
16. The defendants also produced Muhammad Bashir D.W.2, Muhammad Jan D.W.3, Riaz Hussain Shah D.W.4, Ahmad Noor defendant No,2 as D.W.S. Minute scanning of the statements of these witnesses would reveal that they could not discharge the onus that Manzoor has divorced Lal Bibi during his life time. The cross-examination of D.W.5 is worth-mentioning wherein in cross- examination he admits the factum of marriage, the execution of dower deed and particularly that out of the wedlock of Manzoor with Lal Bibi a daughter was born who later on died. In these circumstances, when the factum of marriage is admitted then the onus to prove the divorce heavily lay on the petitioners/defendants which they failed to discharge.
17. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is based on sound reasoning, is in consonance with the established principles of administration of justice and appreciation of evidence, no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been established on the record of the case. Consequently, there is no force in the instant revision petitions bearing No,C.R. 86 of 2004 and C.R. No,87 of 2004 which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
' Copy of this judgment be sent to the District Judge, D.I..Khan for placing the same on the record of the trial Court.