The petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal whereby the appeal filed by Respondents No, 1 to 4 was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Narowal was set aside and the suit for declaration filed by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned appellate Court has illegally misread the evidence led by the petitioners whereas the respectables of the locality and relatives were produced, who had no motive to falsely depose against Respondents No, 1 to 4; that all the PWs were impartial having no interest in the deceased or the petitioners; that Rashid Ahmad (PW- 1) was employee of WAPDA, who categorically stated that Khizar Hayat predecessor-in-interest of Respondents No, 1 to 4 was employed as LDC in WAPDA and his parentage was Mehr Din; that similarly Syed Ibrar Hussain Shah, Assistant Legal Advisor, Sheikh Zayd Hospital, Lahore white appearing as PW-2 also gave the parentage of said Khizar Hayat as Mehr Din, who was admitted in the hospital on 7.2.1988 and died on 14.2.1988; that as per her own statement Mst. Nargus Parveen (PW-7) she is Qureshi by caste, whereas Khizar Hayat son of Din Muhammad was at and as such their marriage could not take place, but to gain benefit illegally Respondents No, 1 to 4 have claimed them to be heirs of said Khizar Hayat son of Din Muhammad being his widow and children respectively, who in fact was illiterate and unmarried and misplaced about 10 years before the filing of the suit; that from the evidence on record it stood proved that Khizar Hayat son of Mehr Din was another person with whom, Respondents No, 1 to 4 were related and they having no relation with Khizar Hayat son of Din Muhammad, were not entitled to inherit his property; that the suit was rightly decreed by the learned trial Court, but the learned appellant Court through misreading and non-reading of evidence has dismissed the suit vide the impugned judgment, which may be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court be restored.
3. Learned counsel for Respondents No, 1 to 4 submits that the evidence produced by the petitioners was deficient and contradictory in nature, which has been rightly disbelieved by the learned appellate Court; that Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din had brought the suit for illegal gain to deprive Respondents No, 1 to 4 of their share in the property of deceased Khizar Hayat; that the learned appellate Court on valid reasons has rightly dismissed the suit and the civil revision is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the Courts below as well as the evidence, attached with this file. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners on 28.12.1989 had brought a suit for declaration alleging therein that Khizar Hayat son of Din Muhammad was his younger brother, who was lunatic and misplaced in the year, 1980 and as his whereabouts were not known for the last about 10 years, he was presumed to be dead, therefore, the suit property left by him was to be devolved on the brother and sisters of Khizar Hayat. it was further claimed that Nargus Parveen Respondent No, 1 was widow of one Khizar Hayat son of Mehr Din, who was employed in WAPDA but she illegally claimed to have been married with Khizar Hayat son of Din Muhammad and that Respondents No, 2 to 4 were born out of the said wedlock. During the proceedings Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din plaintiff died and the petitioners being his successors-in-interest were impleaded as party.
5. The suit was contested by Respondents No, 1 to 4 whereas Respondents No, 5 and 6 were impleaded as pro-forma defendants. As the suit property had further been alienated to Respondents No, 7 and 8, they too were impleaded as defendants, who contested the suit on the ground that they were bona fide purchasers of the land for value without notice.
6. The controversy in nutshell was that whether Khizar Hayat predecessor-in-interest of Respondents No, 1 to 4 was son of Mehr Din or Din Muhammad. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their plea that Khizar Hayat was mentally distorted, who was illiterate, unmarried and misplaced around the year 1980. Even no proclamation or police report, about his missing was brought on the file. On the other hand Respondents No, 1 to 4 have produced copy of nikah-nama Ex:D-1, which finds mention Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din deceased plaintiff as a witness being brother of Khizar Hayat son of Din Muhammad bridegroom and this Nikah nama was proved by the Nikah Khawan, namely, Maulvi Muhammad Ayub (DW-1.). Moreover, Ex:D-2 to D-4 are copies of receipts from the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, according to which Hina Khizar, Ihtisham Khizar and Sana Khizar respondents were born on 28.12.1983, 26.7.1982 and 4.9.1985 respectively and name of their father has been recorded as Khizar Hayat son of Din Muhammad. Even according to the pedigree table Ex:D-5, parentage of Khizar Hayat was recorded as Din Muhammad. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din deceased plaintiff while appearing as PW-3 admitted that his father were four brothers, who were named as Din Muhammad, Khair Din, Umar Din and Mehr Din and all of his paternal uncles were issueless. It is being claimed by the respondents that said Khizar Hayat was brought up by his uncle Mehr Din and it was obvious that somewhere he was recorded as Khizar Hayat son of Mehr Din, but on this sole ground respondents cannot be deprived of their legitimate right. Besides the above said evidence, there are photographs Marks-A to D, which show link of Respondents No, 1 to 4 with Khizar Hayat son of Din Muhammad. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an objection that this evidence cannot be read because the photographs were not exhibited properly, but I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that a judicial notice thereof can be taken. There is no evidence on the record to rebut that these photographs did not pertain to Khizar Hayat son of Din. Muhammad and the bride shown therein was some other lady and not Nargus Parveen Respondent No, 1.
7. The respondents also brought on file copy of an application (Ex:D-8) submitted by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din deceased plaintiff before the WAPDA authorities wherein he admitted Mst. Nargus as widow and Respondents No, 2 to 4 as children of his brother Khizar Hayat, who was employed there as Meter Reader. The said application find mention diary No, 4019 dated 30.4.88. The petitioners have failed to rebut the said application or prove it to be fake from the record of WAPDA.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the petitioners failed to prove their claim through any tangible evidence. The learned appellate Court has rightly accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Harowal through the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.11.2001, which is well reasoned and there being no misreading or non-reading of important piece of evidence on the part of the learned appellate Court it is maintained. Hence this Civil Revision is dismissed with costs.