' RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---Through this revision petition, petitioner/defendant, namely, Muhammad Akram has assailed the judgments and decrees dated 30-4-1992 and 2011- 1995 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Vehari and the District Judge, Vehari whereby suit for declaration filed by Mst. Haleema Bibi and 5 others respondents/plaintiff was decreed and judgment and decree dated 20-11-1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Vehari whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Wali Muhammad son of Khuda Bakhsh who died on 22-2-1984 leaving behind Mst. Haleema Bibi his widow, Nusrat Khan son, Mst. Seema Bibi daughter and Mst.
Mussarrat grand daughter, caste Jatt Bhatti, Chak No,163/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari. Mutation of Inheritance No,192 was entered and sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs by Collector Grade- II/Tehsildar Vehari after enquiry as petitioner Muhammad Akram entered in the said proceedings claiming to be the son of late Wali Muhammad from Mst. Naziran Bibi claiming that said Naziran Bibi was divorced by Wali Muhammad. Muhammad Akram who is son of Mehdi Hassan claiming to be son of Wali Muhammad from Mst. Naziran Bibi contested the said mutation before the Revenue Authorities in a detailed enquiry but failed and filed appeal against said mutation which was further assailed by the respondents unsuccessfully before Additional Commissioner (Revenue)
Multan Division, Multan vide order dated 13-3-1985. Both the revenue hierarchy dilated upon the issue and directed the parties to approach the civil Court for a verdict whereupon a suit was filed by the respondents on 14-3-1985 on the following assertions. Wali Muhammad the predecessor of the plaintiffs died on 22-2-1984 leaving behind the plaintiffs his only legal and Shariah heirs and owners in possession of his land and cultivating the same through plaintiff No,2. Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi relied upon. The defendant Muhammad Akram is son of Mehdi Hassan and his caste is Rajput while the plaintiffs are Bhatti and he has no concern with the land in dispute and also he is not son of late Wali Muhammad. His birth certificate Serial No,25 District Health Officer, Rahim Yar Khan and school certificate of Chak No,163/WB bearing the parentage of Mehdi Hassan caste Rajput is relied upon. It was also challenged that defendant No,1 got inserted his birth at serial No,10 dated 25-8-1951 with conspiracy, fraud and forgery in the parentage of Wali Muhammad with DHQ, Vehari. It was also asserted in the plaint that register hadean 1979-80 in the column of cultivation Muhammad Akram son of Mehdi Hassan is entered as lessee and he is son of Mehdi Hassan not son of Wali Muhammad. Similarly Khasra Girdawari is in the same name and the said entries had never been challenged by the defendant those were actually got entered by him personally because he got sanctioned Mutation No,140/1 dated 17-2-1980 by appearing himself before the Revenue Officer with the parentage of Mehdi Hassan. Thus he has no concern with the inheritance of Wali Muhammad and the Mutation of Inheritance No,192 was rightly sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs on 21-3-1984 after a detailed enquiry and evidence recorded by the then Tehsildar.
' Defendant Muhammad Akram filed written statement on 30-10-1986 and raised the preliminary objections that plaintiffs has got no cause of action and claimed that the birth entry with DHQ Rahim Yar Khan is forged and fictitious. He admitted the date of death of Wali Muhammad i,e, 22- 2-1984 and claimed himself to be the legal heir of late Wali Muhammad and claimed that after the orders of the appellate authorities of revenue Courts mutation of inheritance has been sanctioned in his favour. After recording the evidence the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari vide his judgment and decree dated 30-4-1992 decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Respondent filed appeal against the said judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, Vehari who also vide his judgment and decree dated 20- 11-1995 dismissed the appeal maintaining the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge, hence, this revision petition.
3. During the proceedings of the revision petition petitioners filed C.M.No,230-C of 2008 application under section 151 C.P.C. For permission to bring on record attested copies of forms "A" and "B" of the petitioner as additional evidence. In this C.M. Petitioner sought permission to bring attested copy of forms "A" and "B" of the petitioner submitted in appeal in 1970 under the National Registration Act, 1973. Petitioner submitted these forms in earlier 1970's under the National Registration Act, 1973 and for his registration and for obtained the NIC. He continuously made efforts to bring certified copies of these forms but he was by the department and officially he got attested copies in June, 2007; that parentage of petitioner is in dispute and these forms have significant bearing on the merits of the case; that delay was not intentionally.
(i) Respondent vehemently opposes the request in their reply stated that additional evidence cannot be permitted at this belated stage; that these attested copies however manipulated by the petitioner and termed these forged and fake, that these documents were not attested as per law; no number of NIC is mentioned, that these forms are not traceable in the record of NADRA at Vehari.
(ii) C.M.No,230-C of 2008 filed by the Muhammad Akram for permission to produce additional evidence at this belated stage if he was son of Wali Muhammad then of course, his name should have been given in the head of the family while he appended the form which he allegedly obtained on 13-6-2007 and placed on the record on 9-5-2008 showing himself as head of the family while at the trial, the respondents/plaintiffs have already produced the records Exhs.P.6 and P.7 and NIC of late Wali Muhammad was also written while the form placed on the record by the petitioner are not containing any such national identity card number while no person having no identity card with him can verify the form, this fact is sufficient to decline the request, admittedly, documents sought to be produced pertaining to early 1970's. Petitioner has not produced the same during the trial or at the evidence stage. He appeared as D.W.2 in March, 1992. No such request was made to the learned trial Court. Petitioner could have produced these documents at the trial of the stage or early stage. No probable or plausible explanation has been made by the petitioner for filing this petition at this belated stage. Reasons given by the petitioner are not plausible or probable.
Petitioner has filed this revision in 1995. No such request was made at the filing of the revision petition. Petitioner has made request for the production of additional evidence after 12 years of filing of the revision petition. It is settled law that there are chances of manufacturing or fabrication or manoeuvering of such documents cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter, this petition has no force and the same is dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents/ plaintiffs have failed to prove their case with cogent and reliable evidence. On the other hand, petitioners/defendants have proved through documentary evidenced that he is son of Wali Muhammad; that both the Courts below have mainly dealt with issue No,4 (whether petitioner/ defendant is legal heir of Wali Muhammad) not decided the other issues; that both the Courts have not considered the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners in its true perspective; that in presence of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners in shape of Exhs.D.1, D.2, D.3, D.4 specially D.5 (birth certificate) both the Courts below have wrongly relied upon the oral evidence ignoring the documentary evidence. He has relied on 1985 SCM R 1052, 1989 SCM R 704; that both the Courts below have relied upon the school certificates which were not true certified copies of the documents. He placed reliance on Naziran Ahmad v. Boota and others 1989 SCM R 450, Riaz v. Muhammad Salim and 4 others 1989 SCM R 1491, Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Qasim 2003 SCM R 1311, Irshad Hussain v.
Ijaz Hussain and 9 others 1994 PLD SC 326, Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647 and Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Rafiq 2001 SC MR 1651.
5. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgments given by the Courts below submits that respondents/plaintiffs have proved their oral as well as. Documentary evidence produced in the shape of Exhs.P.1 to P.10; that Mst. Naziran Bibi mother of the petitioner tried to establish parentage of other children of Mehdi Hassan in a collusive suit of maintenance but said Naziran was eloped with Mehdi Hassan and subsequently, contracted Nikah at Rahim Yar Khan where Muhammad Akram was born as deposed by P.W. Muhammad Haneef P.W.8 nephew of Mehdi Hassan. He placed reliance on the case Nazir Ahmad v. Boota and others 1989 SCM R 450, Riaz v. Muhammad Salim and 4 others 1989 SCM R 1491, Irshad Hussain v. Ijaz Hussain and 9 others PLD 1994 SC 326 and Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly, plaintiff/respondent produced P.W.1 Shabbir Ahmad, Junior Clerk DHQ Office, Rahim Yar Khan who produced the record of birth entry of Muhammad Akram son of Mehdi Khan son of Munshi Khan Exh. P.1 a certified copy proved by him as the defendant claimed this entry as forged.
He got an application exhibited as D.1 in the statement of this witness. P.W.2 Akbar Ali PTC School Teacher, Government Middle School Chak No,163/WB who produced the school record regarding admission of Muhammad Akram son of Mehdi Khan dated 15-7-1961 and also proved the signatures of Mehdi Khan in Class-I at Serial No,22 and also produced Exh.P.2 application, Exh.P.3 Admission Form and also school leaving certificate, Exh.4 Register Dakhal and Kharij Serial No,22 Exh.P.5. P.W.3, Ghulam Muhammad son of Ramzan caste Bhatti who is nephew of Wali Muhammad, he appeared and proved that Wali Muhammad firstly married to Sahib Bibi from whom Khurshid Begum was born who was his wife and had passed away, Mst. Razia and Mumtaz Begum were also born out of this wife. Thereafter, he married to Haleema Bibi from whom Nusrat and Naseem Begum were born. He stated that Muhammad Akram is not the son of Wali Muhammad. P.W.4 Muhammad Alam son of Bakhtiar who was Chowkidar in the relevant days of village Abdullah Pur Bharan where Mehdi Hassan married with Naziran Bibi and out of said wedlock Muhammad Akram was born and he reported the birth to police. P.W.5 Gul Muhammad son of Bahadur Khan also proved the Nikah of Naziran with Mehdi Hassan by late Moulvi Abdul Rahim at his Dera. Then P.W.6 Mst. Haleema appeared and proved the contents of plaint and in rebuttal P.W.7 Allah Yar son of Shonay Khan the maternal uncle of defendant was produced who also testified that Mehdi Hassan married with his uterine sister Naziran by enticing away to Rahim Yar Khan in Abdullah Pur from whom Muhammad Akram was born who also proved that Wali Muhammad was married with Sahib Bibi who was also his uterine sister and then he married to Mst. Haleema and clearly stated that Naziran was never married with Wali Muhammad and was married to Mehdi Hassan and P.W.8 Muhammad Hanif son of Munshi Khan who is nephew of Mehdi Hassan and also supported the version of the plaintiffs that Naziran married with Mehdi Hassan in 1949-50 in Rahim Yar Khan where Mehdi Hassan took Naziran after abducting her and defendant is the son of Mehdi Hassan and plaintiffs also produced copy of Jamabandi 1979-80 Exh.P.5, Form "Say" from NADRA Exh.P.6, Form "Bay" of NADRA Exh.P.7 and Mutation No,192 Exh.P.8, order of A.C. Vehari Exh.P.9 and order of A.C.
(R), Multan is Exh.P.10 and in rebuttal Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.l1 showing Muhammad Akram son of Mehdi Hassan.
8. The defendant Muhammad Akram revision petitioner produced D.W.1, Dr. Talib Hussain Shah, DHQ Rahim Yar Khan to prove his report dated 26-10-1986 Exh.D.1. In his evidence he admitted the certified copy of Exh.P.1 along with his signatures. D.W.2 Muhammad Akram appeared as his own witness and produced his mother Mst. Naziran Bibi as D.W.3. He also produced plaint of a family suit titled Naziran Bibi v. Mehdi Hassan along with statements of parties, order and decree dated 9-2- 1985 Exh.D.1 and D.2 and also the order of AC(Rev), Multan dated 13-3-1985 Exh.D.3 and order of AC dated 12-10-1985 Exh.D.4 copy of birth entry of Vehari Exh.D.5. Application to DHO with report in original dated 29-6-1985 Exh.D.6. Order of AC Vehari dated 27-5-1984 Exh.D.7 copy of order of Board of Revenue dated 21-1-1991 Exh.D.8 and closed his evidence. Mst. Naziran failed to produce any Nikah Nama with Wali Muhammad. She also failed to produce any Nikah Nama as well as witness of Nikah while appearing in witness box she claimed that she gave birth to two sons from Wali Muhammad, namely, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Akram and claimed that Akram was died about 10 months of his birth while Muhammad Akram stated that Akram was died about 10 months of his birth while Muhammad Akram stated that Akram his elder brother died after 10/15 days. She failed to produce any birth certificate as well as death certificate. Thus, if she produces the same to prove the factum of birth of Muhammad Akram it mighty be non suited defendant, therefore, the presumption under Article 129(g) is established against the defendant. She also alleged divorce in presence of his brother Manic and Lal but failed to produce the same in Court thus adverse presumption could be drawn against her that she is merely making bald statements to accommodate his son from Mehdi Hassan.
9. Petitioners/plaintiffs produced uterine brother of Mst. Naziran to support their claim that she never married with Wali Muhammad nor Akram defendant is son of Wali Muhammad rather they unanimously proved that he was born from Mst. Naziran from the wedlock of Mehdi Hassan son of Munshi Khan and all the witnesses proved the fact that she eloped with Mehdi Hassan and went to Rahim Yar Khan, they contracted Nikah there and Akram was born there. This fact further finds support from school admission form and other records and Mutation No,140/1 got eritered by Muhammad Akram himself with the parentage of Mehdi Hassan and Khasra Girdawari which was never challenged by him, therefore, presumption attracted to Jamabandi which has been prepared after a lease mutation got sanctioned by the defendant Akram himself with the parentage of Mehdi Hassan.
10. Mst. Naziran and Akram not denied the birth of Muhammad Akram in year 1951 while she appeared in revenue Court claimed her age 45 years on 21-3-1984 meaning thereby her birth was of 1939 while Akram claimed his age 33 years in 1984 and exactly his date of birth is of 1951. He admitted that he has no written proof of his parentage of Wali Muhammad. Presumption could be drawn if the late Wali Muhammad was real father of Akram and had alienated his property before his death in favour of other legal heirs then it could be safely said that he was the son of Wali Muhammad and his stepmothers tried to deprive him but in this case no such fact was taken place. It only when the mutation was entered respondents started claiming that he is son of Wali Muhammad and had not produced any National Identity Cards. There is no misreading or non- reading of record, both the Courts below considered the entire evidence and discussed it in details in paras No,5 to 19 of the learned District Judge and paras No,5 to 17 of the learned Senior Civil Judge.
11. Perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees reveals that the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below are elaborate and are based on cogent reasons. No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners with the judgments rendered by the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. As per the dictum of law laid down by honourable apex Court in cases of Aurangzeb through legal heirs and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCM R 236, Shafi Muhammad and others v. Khanzada Gul and others 2007 SCM R 368, Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad 2007 SCM R 926, Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Qasim 2003 SCM R 1311 and Abdul Hakeem v. Habib Ullah and 11 others 1997 SCM R 1139, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are not open to exception unless it is established that the same suffered from any jurisdictional defect or were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, which elements are conspicuously lacking in the present civil revision.
12. Resultantly, there being no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.