MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this single judgment I propose to decide Civil Revisions Nos.2133 of 2002 and 2134 of 2002.
2. Briefly stated the facts of these two civil revisions are that respondent Muhammad Salim filed a suit for possession against the petitioners/ defendants claiming that he is son of Abdul Hameed who was owner of suit property comprising Khewat No, 69, Khatoni No,69, Khasra No,316-264/61/1- 75-85/65, measuring 5 marlas 1-1/2 Sarsahi out of which he is owner of 1 marla, the property shown to be situated at Bagh Cheeta Ram, Block No,14 Chak No,45/N.B District Sargodha. He further asserted that the petitioners/defendants have taken over the possession of the property from his father as lessee. Now they have refused to restore the possession to him being the only legal heirs of deceased Abdul Hameed. The petitioners/defendants filed the written statement and raised number of preliminary as well as factual objections, Their claim is that Muhammad Salim is not son of Abdul Hameed and they are living in the house being the owner of the same. The petitioners/defendants also filed a suit against the respondent for declaration to the effect that the respondent/plaintiff is not the son of Abdul Hameed and is not entitled to any share out of the property of deceased Abdul Hameed. Learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and framed following consolidated issues:-- "ISSUES.
(1) Whether plaintiff is owner of the suit property by way of inheritance and defendants are in possession of the same as lessee? OPP
(2) If issue No,1 is proved in affirmative whether plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property? OPP
(3) Whether plaintiff is not the son of Abdul Hamid deceased hence he has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD
(4) Whether the defendants are legal heirs of deceased Abdul Hamid and thus true owners of the disputed property? OPD
(5) Whether the suit has been incorrect valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(7) Relief."
3. The evidence was recorded in the suit of respondent and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff and decreed the suit filed by the petitioners/defendants. The respondent assailed the said judgment and decree through an appeal which was allowed by the learned appeal court on 6-7-2002 and decreed the suit of respondent B for possession and also modified the decree in favour of respondents declaring that petitioners and respondent are the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Hameed and as such they are entitled to their respective shares in suit property in accordance with Islamic Law of inheritance. The petitioners have assailed the said judgment and decree through two civil revisions claiming that the learned appeal Court has wrongly passed a decree declaring that the respondent is the legal heir of deceased Abdul Hameed and he is entitled to a possession of his share in the property. He further submits that impugned judgment and decree is against law and facts and is outcome of misreading and non-reading of record. He submits that the learned appeal court has failed to appreciate the document Exh.D4 which is form "{{URDU TEXT}}6.-'" submitted by Abdul Hameed himself in his life time with the Registration Department does not show that respondent is his son and the learned appeal court has wrongly relied upon the school leaving certificate Exh.P1 of the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment and decree passed by the learned appeal court and submits that real brother of deceased Abdul Hameed has categorically admitted that respondent is the son of Abdul Hameed.
5. The precise dispute between the parties is that the petitioners are not accepting Muhammad Salim respondent as the legal heir of Abdul Hameed. The real brother of deceased Abdul Hameed namely Habib Ullah appeared as P.W.3 and deposed that Bashiran Bibi is not the wife of his brother.
P.W.3 further deposed that Muhammad Salim is the son of Abdul Hameed, Exh.Pl is a school leaving certificate which shows that Muhammad Salim's father name is Abdul Hameed. He remained the student from 15-4-1955 to 22-11-1955 of the said school Exh.P-2 is Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1990-91 which shows that Muhammad Salim is the son of Abdul Hameed, Bashiran Bibi when appeared in witness box as DW-1 deposed that Muhammad Salim is the son of one Harnam Singh.
His mother's name was Basanti. Her husband got married with Basanti and Muhammad Salim was born out of the wedlock of Harman Singh and Basanti. Out of the marriage of Abdul Hameed and Basanti no child was born. She admits that Habib Ullah who is P.W.3 is the real brother of Abdul Hameed. He is living adjacent to her house. She has good relations with him. She admits that Muhammad Salim was studying, in Khalqia High School Sargodha. The only DW appeared in the suit is Bashiran Bibi, whereas the real brother of Abdul Hameed appeared in the witness box and Bashiran Bibi admits that he is residing adjacent to her house. She has good relations with him.
Habib Ullah when appeared in witness box categorically stated that Muhammad Salim is son of his real brother Abdul Hameed Bashiran Bibi herself admits that Muhammad Salim was studying in Khalqia High School Sargodha; the certificate issued by said school shows that Muhammad Salim is son of Abdul Hameed. The evidence produced by both the parties shows that both are trying to prove that Abdul Hameed was their predecessor-ininterest but are accusing each other.
Muhammad Salim is claiming that Bashiran Bibi is not the wife of Abdul Hameed and Bashiran Bibi is claiming that Muhammad Salim is not the son of Abdul Hameed. The evidence available on record shows that both the parties are the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Hameed and the property left by Abdul Hameed has to be distributed among his legal heirs, which is a house constructed on the land measuring 5 marlas. The learned appeal court has rightly came to the conclusion that both the parties are the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Hameed and as such are entitled to their respective share out of the property left by deceased Abdul Hameed in accordance with Islamic law of inheritance. The petitioners have failed to show any material irregularity and illegality in the impugned judgment of learned appeal Court. The judgment of learned appeal court is perfectly in accordance with law and his findings are based on evidence available on record. The petitioners have failed to make out any case against the impugned judgment and as such both the revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.