SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J. --- By means of this civil revision the petitioner has called in question the judgment and decree dated 20.5.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni District Sahiwal whereby while dismissing the appeal, judgment and decree dated 12.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-III Chichawatni was kept in tact.
2. Noor Ahmed, respondent instituted a suit for seeking declaration to the effect that he being husband of Mst. Salamat Bibi deceased, who died on 12.7.1962 was entitled to inherit from her estate and mutation No. 124, dated 25.7.1970 whereby he had been deprived from the inheritance of his deceased wife is illegal against facts and based on misrepresentation and ineffective qua his rights and the defendant should be permanently restrained from alienating the disputed property.
It was further contended that the predecessor of the present petitioner, Mukhtar A.I produced a wrong pedigree-table before the revenue authorities showing Mst. Salamat Bibi as virgin and got registered the mutation in question deceitfully.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant/revision petitioner. It was contended that Mst. Salamat Bibi was virgin and she was never married with Noor Ahmed, respondent. Therefore, the impugned mutation was sanctioned in accordance with law. Various preliminary objections were also raised.
4. Learned Trial Court from the divergent pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:---
(i) Whether the mutation of inheritance No. 124, dated 25.7.1970 has been sanctioned through fraud and misrepresentation and is liable to be cancelled? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is lawful legal heir of Mst. Salamat Bibi? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD
(iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
(v) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and the defendant is entitled to the compensatory costs under Section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD.
(vi) Relief.
5. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.2011.
6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2011 which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2011. Hence the present revision petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Mst. Salamat Bibi was virgin and she was not a legally wedded wife of the respondent Noor Ahmed. Therefore, the impugned mutation was sanctioned in accordance with law in favour of Mst. Janat Bibi mother of Mst. Salamat Bibi and Mukhtar Ahmed, the predecessor of revision petitioner, i.e. The paternal uncle of the deceased but the learned Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and has decreed the suit of the respondent arbitrarily. Both the judgments and decrees are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. Therefore, both are liable to be reversed and the suit of the respondent is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Muhammad Saeed v. Muhammad Siddique and 10 others (2010 M LD 855), Abdur Razzaq and others v. Zahoor Ahmad and others (2005 CLC 556). It is also contended that the respondent has not claimed decree for possession regarding the disputed land. Hence, the suit was incompetent in its present form and was also liable to be dismissed on this ground.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. Noor Ahmed has claimed that Mst. Salamat Bibi was his wife; four children were born out of the wedlock and unfortunately none is alive. Noor Ahmed himself appeared as PW.1 and deposed that Mst.
Salamat Bibi was his wife and she was owner of 5 kanals, 4 marlas of the land. He has been deprived from her share of inheritance by Mukhtar A.I father of the revision petitioner by practicing fraud, misrepresentation and providing a wrong pedigree-table before the revenue authorities showing Mst. Salamat Bibi as virgin. Muhammad Sadique PW.2 has also corroborated him. He has also produced a copy of register of death entries Ex.P.2 before the Trial Court. According to which Mst. Salamat Bibi died on 12.7.1962 and the factum of her death was reported on 16.7.1962. In column No. 4 of the said entries, it has been mentioned that Mst. Salamat Bibi was wife of Noor Ahmed.
Ex.P.1 is 50 years old document and entries of which have not been challenged. Fateh Ullah, revision petitioner appeared as DW.1 and Allah Bakhsh appeared as DW.2 before the Trial Court in the rebuttal.
9. Fateh Ullah as DW.1 has deposed that he has never heard that Mst. Salamat Bibi was married.
Allah Bakhsh DW.2 has also deposed that Mst. Salamat Bibi died as virgin.
10. Noor Ahmed respondent has proved by producing the trust worthy evidence that Mst. Salamat Bibi was his wife. The entry regarding death of Mst. Salamat Bibi was made in the register of death entries on 16.7.1962 wherein Noor Ahmed has been shown as husband of Mst. Salamat Bibi. The aforesaid entry remained unrebutted. The aforesaid entry is 50 years old and presumption of truth is attached to such entries unless proved otherwise. The register of birth entry is a public document and certified copy thereof is admissible in evidence under Article 92 of Qanune-Shahadat, 1984 and can be safely relied upon.
11. After the death of Mst. Salamat Bibi the respondent Noor Ahmed become co-sharer in her property alongwith the remaining legal heirs and a co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of the joint property alongwith other co-sharers. Therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that possession as a consequential relief has not been claimed, has got no force.
12. The concurrent findings advanced by the learned subordinate Courts are just having been passed in lawful manner. No interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Alamgir Khan through L. Rs. And others and Haji Abdul Sattar Khan and others (2009 SCM R 54) and Amir Abdullah v. Kafaitullah Khan (2008 SCM R 756).
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence. There is no jurisdictional error in both the judgments. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the Courts below.
The instant revision is devoid of merits and is, hereby, dismissed in limine.
Civil revision .