' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through the instant civil revision under section 115, C.P.C., petitioners Riaz Hussain son of Jara, Kora son of Raheem Bakhsh and Mirza son of Meelo, seek setting aside of the judgments and decrees dated 30-9-2009 and 28-1-2010. Through the former judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, suit for the respondents for declaration filed against Mst. Bano, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.11 to 14 claiming that they are owners in possession of 5/6 share of the suit property and defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit property, as well as against the petitioners, was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, whereas through the latter judgment and decree the appeal of petitioners Kaura and Mirza was accepted and the appeal of Riaz was dismissed, hence the instant revision petition.
2. Facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant revision petition are that respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed a suit for declaration against Mst. Bano, predecessorin-interest of respondents Nos.11 to 14 contending therein that they are owners-inpossession of 5/6 share of the suit-land described in the head-note of the plaint and the defendants have no concern whatsoever A with the suit property and the Mutation No,2946 dated 23-5-1958, Mutation No,2430 dated 5-9-2001 and Mutation No,2510 dated 6-2-2002 are against law, facts and merits of the case, null and void ab initio and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs and as consequential relief they also sought permanent injunction to the B effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs and to alienate the suit property. The plaintiffs averred in the suit that originally Mst. Bakhtawar, daughter of Kaura was owner in possession of the suit property in Mauza Chahil Chahan as well as Mauza Thatha Gaboolan captioned in the head note of the plaint; she was died in 1958 and in her life time she observed Sharia according to the injunctions of Qur'an and Sunna; she had no male issue and she was survived by four daughters, two nephews and one niece and after her death the suit property measuring 5 Kanals, 12 Marlas was to devolve in the aforementioned legal heirs; the plaintiff took the possession to the extent of 5/6 share while Mst.
Bano defendant was owner to the extent of 1/6 share; that two months before the filing of the suit it transpired to the plaintiffs that the suit property situated in Mauza Thatha Gaboolan has falsely been registered through inheritance mutation in favour of the defendant Mst. Bano and deprived of the remaining legal heirs/plaintiffs from the estate of Mst. Bakhtawar. Mst. Bano further alienated the suit property in favour of the petitioners which is against law, facts and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further contended that the inheritance mutation of the suit property situated in Mauza Chahil Chahan has rightly been transferred through inheritance mutation in favour of legal heirs of Mst. Bakhtawar and prayed that the suit be decreed.
3. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement raising certain preliminary and factual objections therein. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties following 10 issues were framed by the learned trial Court:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time-barred? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(5) Whether the description of the suit property is incorrect? OPD
(6) Whether the defendants are entitled to get the special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(7) Whether Mst. Bakhtawar deceased as well as the parties belong to `Shia Sect' and due to that 'Sect' in the presence of sisters the nephews i,e, plaintiffs Nos.8 to 10 are not entitled to get the inheritance and the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(8) Whether the defendants Nos.3 to 7 are not the legal heirs of Mst. Zohran and she had only two sons namely Madah Hussain and Baqir Hussain and due to that the suit is also frivolous one and is also liable to be dismissed? OPD
(9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP
(10) Relief.
4. The plaintiffs in support of their claim produced Mitha Khan as P.W.1, Allah Wasaya as P.W.2 and Atta Muhammad as P.W.3. The plaintiffs also tendered in evidence copy of Jamabandi for the year 1998-99 for Khata No,25 as Exh.P.1, copy of inheritance Mutation No,2822 of Mauza Chahal Chahan as Exh.P.2, copy of inheritance mutation regarding heritance of Mst.Bakhtawar of Mauza Thhathha Gaboolan No,2946 as Exh.P.3, copy of Mutation No,2430 as Exh.P.4 and copy of Mutation No,2510 as Exh.P.5. To rebut the claim of the plaintiffs, Kaura Khan appeared as D.W.1 and Riaz Hussain as D.W.2.
5. Learned trial Court decided issue No,9 as to the entitlement of the plaintiffs for declaration in their favour. Issues Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 8, which were to be proved by the defendants, were decided as not pressed by the learned counsel for the defendants. Issue No,7 whether deceased Mst.
Bakhtawar and the parties belonged to Shia Sect appears to be decided by the trial Court that the parties did not belong to Shia Sect. Issue No,3 as to the limitation was decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that regarding questions of inheritance of the parties there is no time limit for filing a suit. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs were decreed by judgment and decree dated 30-9- 2009.
6. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court Riaz Hussain, petitioner No,1, filed an appeal, whereas petitioners Nos.2 and 3 Kaura son of Rahim Bakhsh, and Mirza son of Meelo filed a separate appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan, decided both the appeals by a consolidated judgment and decree dated 28-1-2010, and modified the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court in the following words:-- "Notwithstanding the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is hereby modified in the term that the transfer of the suit property to the extent of 1/6 share in favour of the appellants Kaura and Mirza by the deceased Mst. Bano is valid, justified and legal and the remaining suit property to the extent of 5/6 share from the total suit land measuring 5-Kanals 12 Marlas shall be devolved to the remaining legal heirs except Mst. Bano deceased/legal heirs because she had transferred her respective share in favour of appellants Kaura and Mirza, the first vendees of the suit property, therefore, the appeal to the extent of Kaura and Mirza is hereby accepted in the terms mentioned above and the appeal to the extent of Riaz Hussain appellant is hereby dismissed."
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned judgments and decrees. It is to be noted that the petitioners who are vendees and purchased the land from Mst.
Bano, one of the legal heirs of Mst. Bakhtawar, had filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The moot point in the case was whether Mst. Bakhtawar, deceased, predecessor-ininterest of Mst. Bano and the parties belong to 'Shia Sect' and because of that in presence of sisters the nephews i,e, plaintiffs Nos.8 to 10 are not entitled to get the inheritance. The suit property was situated in two different Mauzas, i,e, the Mauza Chahil Chahan and Mauza Thatha Gaboolan. The inheritance mutation Exh.P.2 situated in Mauza Chahil Chahan had rightly been entered in favour of all the legal heirs of deceased Mst. Bakhtawar, meaning thereby that at the time of death of Mst. Bakhtawar deceased, her four daughters, one brother, nephew and niece were present whereas the suit property situated in Mauza Thatha Gaboolan was only transferred in favour of Mst. Bano defendant No,1 and she deprived the remaining legal heirs of Mst. Bakhtawar. It is manifestly clear from the record that Mst. Bakhtawar was not of Shia Sect but she belonged to the Sect Ahl-eSunnat.
8. Admittedly, Mst. Bano, deceased, was entitled to the extent of 1/6 share from the total suit property of her mother Mst. Bakhtawar measuring 5-Kanals, 12 Marlas. It is further admitted fact that Mst.Bano deceased sold out portion of suit property to the petitioners Kaura and Mirza measuring 2-Kanals 11-Marlas vide Mutation No,2430 dated 5-9-2001 and also sold to petitioner Riaz Hussain a portion of land measuring 3-Kanals and 1 Marla out of the suit property through Mutation No,2510 dated 6-2-2002. It is also admitted fact that petitioners Kaura and Mirza Khan purchased the portion of suit property prior to petitioner Riaz Hussain. Since Mst. Bano deceased was entitled to 1/6 share from the total suit property measuring 5 Kanals, 12 Marlas, rest of the suit property, i,e, 5/6 share was to be devolved to the remaining legal heirs of Mst. Bakhtawar deceased, as such transfer of suit property to the extent of 1/6 share to the petitioners Kaura and Mirza, the first purchasers of the said land, F is valid, as also held by the learned first Appellate Court, and to the extent of remaining transfer of land in their favour is not valid and not justified as it is a general rule that none can confer a better title in property than he himself possess. As regards the case of Riaz Hussain petitioner, he himself stated in his examination-in-chief that he purchased the suit land subsequent to Mirza and Kaura petitioners.
9. The learned first Appellate Court has rightly modified the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court that the transfer of the suit property to the extent of 1/6 share in favour of petitioners Kaura and Mirza by the deceased Mst. Bano is valid and justified and the remaining property to the extent of 5/6 share from the total suit H land measuring 5-Kanals, 12 Marlas shall be devolved to the remaining legal heirs except Mst. Bano deceased because she had transferred her respective share in favour of petitioners Kaura and Mirza, the first vendees of the suit property. The appeal of Kaura and Mirza petitioners has rightly been accepted and the appeal of Riaz Hussain petitioner has rightly been dismissed. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge is well reasoned and within his jurisdiction calling for no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. No illegality or irregularity and no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been committed by the learned first Appellate I Court.
' Resultantly, this civil revision having no merits is dismissed in limine.