Through this civil revision the petitioners/defendants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chishtian whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Chishtian decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondents No, 1 and Respondents No, 5 filed a suit for declaration contending therein that Plaintiff No, 1 as husband of Mst. Sakina Bibi and Plaintiff No, 2 as son and Defendant No, 8 as daughter of Mst. Sakina Bibi are entitled to inherit the property of Mst. Sakina Bibi because she was entitled to inherit her father Muhammad Din as she died on 23.7.1966 whereas Muhammad Din died on 12.7.1966. The mutation of inheritance as well as further mutation of transfer were challenged in the suit because Mst. Tina Bibi was not given share of inheritance in the legacy of Muhammad Din. The defendants/petitioners appeared and filed their written statement. They denied Mst. Sakina Bibi to be the daughter of Muhammad Din. After framing of issues on 5.1.2002, an additional Issue No, 7-A was also framed on 20.4.2005. After framing of issues the parties entered into an agreement on 26.9.2003 and appointed with the intervention of the Court Sh. Muhammad Siddique son of Sh. Muhammad Amin as Referee. Before report of the Referee Muhammad Islam Respondent No, 1 withdrew his offer for appointment of Referee. Afterwards Plaintiff No, 2 Muhammad Nasrullah also withdrew his claim and he was made defendant in the suit Afterwards he appeared as DW.1 and stated that he has received Rs,8,00,000/- for his share and also for the share of his sister Mst. Nasira Bibi Defendant No,
8. Both the parties produced their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005 decreed the suit. The appeal was filed which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners frankly conceded that the petitioners have admitted Mst.
Sakina Bibi to be daughter of Muhammad Din in their evidence. Now case of the petitioners is that Mst. Sakina Bibi died before Muhammad Din therefore, Muhammad Islam Respondent No, 1 the husband of Mst. Sakina Bibi is not entitled to receive any share of inheritance in accordance with Section 4 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961. Further that Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 failed to prove that Mst. Sakina Bibi died after the death of Muhammad Din. Further learned counsel stats that both the Courts below have not attended Issue No, 1 which was with regard to limitation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs argues that the petitioners/defendants are not entitled to any relief from this Court because they are dishonest.
They pleaded in their written statement that Mst. Sakina Bibi was not the daughter of Muhammad Din and was not their sister. Further states that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Further it is a case of inheritance; therefore, limitation cannot be a hurdle in the way of justice. Further contends that while giving compensation to Nasrullah and his sister Defendant No, 8 the petitioners/defendants have indirectly admitted the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents. Further states that in rebuttal of the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs/respondents no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioners/defendants which is available on record as Ex.P-16, Ex.P-17 and Ex.P-18. Learned counsel further submits that defendants themselves got summoned Muhammad Ashiq Sanitary Inspector TMA, Chishtian and was present before the Court on 19.10.2005 but he was intentionally given up because he was having complete record with him which was against the defendants/petitioners.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The petitioners/defendants in their written statement have dishonestly denied that Mst. Sakina Bibi was the daughter of Muhammad Din and their sister but in evidence they have admitted that Mst.
Sakina Bibi was their sister and daughter of Muhammad Din. Further there is documentary evidence on record with regard to death of Mst. Sakina Bibi and Muhammad Din. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show any mis-reading, non-reading or jurisdictional defect in the judgments passed by both the Courts below. It is a case of inheritance, therefore, limitation cannot be a hurdle in the way of legal heirs to get share of inheritance as at the time of death of propositus all the legal heirs became co-sharer in the property and possession of one co-sharer is assumed to be possession on behalf of other co-sharer. In this way findings on issue of limitation of Courts below are also correct. It is also made clear that the legal heirs of Mst. Sakina Bibi who have compromised with the defendants/petitioners are not entitled to again receive share of inheritance of Mst. Sakina Bibi.
In the light of what has been discussed above, this civil revision is dismissed.