CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs Mst. Khadeeja Bibi and Mst. Ayisha Bibi challenged the legality and validity of mutation No. 716, dated 29.12.1993 (Exh.P- 4) through a suit for declaration. It was averred in the plaint that they are daughters of Sardara who was Shia by sect, that Sardara gave away his one-third property to A.I Muhammad, husband of Ayisha (petitioner No. 2) through a will and the rest of the property was to be devolved upon his daughters (present petitioners) as per Shia law, because he has no other child. But respondents Nos. 1 to 3 through collusiveness and fraud got sanctioned the disputed mutation alleging that Sardara was Sunni by faith making their way for share in his property, so the Mutation No. 716, dated 29.12.1993 is illegal, void and liable to be set aside.
2. The suit was contested by the respondents mainly on the ground that Sardara was Sunni by faith. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court. Framed issues, recorded evidence and proceeded to dismiss the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.1998. The appeal preferred thereagainst also met with the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha. Hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that one of the beneficiaries Allah Bakhsh has himself admitted that the suit of the petitioners is true and he has no objection if the suit is decreed but the learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration this important aspect of the case. Further contends that the deceased has himself stated in his declaration (Exh.P1) that he was Shia by faith; that one of the marginal witnesses was also produced before the Court who verified the contents of Exh.P1. The PWs have categorically stated that the deceased Sardara was Shia by faith. The petitioners-plaintiffs have proved through cogent evidence that Sardara was Shia by sect but learned Courts below have not taken into consideration the evidence produced by the plaintiffs and also the conceding statement of one of the beneficiaries Allah Bakhsh and only considering the disputed mutation a gospel truth has illegally and unlawfully dismissed the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs. He prays that the civil revision in hand be allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vigorously opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners fully supporting the judgments and decrees by learned Courts below. He maintains that the suit .Of the petitioners is nothing but an afterthought at the pedigree-table was produced by the plaintiffs themselves at the time of sanctioning of the disputed mutation, therefore, there is no dispute that the respondents are collaterals. The evidence adduced by the respondents fully proves that the deceased Sardara was Sunni' by sect and his Namaz-i-Janaza was led by a Sunni Imam. He avers that the civil revision has no force, it merits dismissal.
5. Arguments advanced 'lay learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record made available before me.Has alto been perused with their able assistance.
6. The Moot point in this case is as to whether the deceased' Sardara was a Sunni or Shia. The record highlights that Sardara died on 20.05.1993. He left behind two daughters Mst. Khadeeja Bibi and Mst. Ayisha Bibi. After death of Sardara, mutation No. 716, dated 29.12.1993 was sanctioned whereby the property of Sardara was devolved upon the parties in accordance with Sunni law. It is clear from the record that at the time of sanctioning of the mutation in dispute, the pedigree-table was produced by the petitioners-plaintiffs themselves admitting the respondents collaterals of the deceased. After one year of sanctioning of the mutation in dispute, though there is no question of limitation, the petitioners filed the present suit. It appears that the petitioners-plaintiffs just to oust the respondents from the inheritance of the deceased Sardara have filed the instant suit as an afterthought. PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses and related inter se. PW-1 Mst. Khadeeja is petitioner-plaintiff herself while PW-2 Khushi Muhammad is her husband, so both are direct beneficiaries if the suit is decreed. Only PW-3 Muhammad Ameer can be said as an independent witness who avers that Sardara was a Shia by faith. The PWs as well as the plaintiffs and their husbands also claim that they are Sunni by faith. On the contrary, Nazeer Ahmed, respondent No. 1 appeared as DW-1 while two independent witnesses Moulvi Mushtaq Ahmed and Ghulam Muhammad put appearance as DWs-2 & 3. The DWs categorically and vicariously state that Sardara was Sunni by faith and all her family also belongs to the same sect. They also depose that his namaz-i-janaza was also offered by a Sunni Maulvi Manzoor Ellahi which fact is also stated by PW-3 Muhammad Ameer. The petitioners-plaintiffs have failed to rebut the same through cogent evidence. In the circumstances, preponderance of evidence lies in favour of the respondents.
7. Regarding conceding statement of Allah Bakhsh who is one of the beneficiaries, this Court observes that mere conceding statement is not sufficient to prove that Sardara was Shia when it is disputed by the other side and is not supported by corroborative evidence.
8. Exh.P-1 is a declaration whereby Sardara during his lifetime allegedly declared that he was a Shia, so for the purpose of deduction of zakat, he may be treated accordingly. But the veracity of Exh.P1 is highly doubtful. It does not bear date and place and also not attested by any Oath Commissioner or notary public. The marginal witnesses are Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Ameer. Khushi Muhammad though termed it as true document but his statement is not enough to prove this document. It is also pertinent to mention here that Exh.P1 has not come from any competent authority or bank maintaining such record but it was produced by Khushi Muhammad himself. Both sides admit that the Exh.P1 is original document and it was not submitted in the bank.
This makes crystal clear that Sardara did not swear this affidavit/declaration but it was prepared later on as an afterthought just to defeat the right of the respondents which is permissible under the law. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners-plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove Exh.P1 as required under Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below are well-reasoned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has miserably failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence calling for interference by this Court.
9. 'As a result of above discussion, this civil revision is bereft of any merit, hence dismissed.
Civil revision petition dismissed.