MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. - Through this revision petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.11.2002 passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent (against the judgment and decree dated 03,05.2000 of the learned Civil Judge, decreeing the suit of the present petitioner).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the suit for declaration regarding the property measuring 48- Kanals, 02- Marlas situated at Kot Maji Khan, Tehsil Pattoki, District Kasur was filed, which was resisted by the respondent by filing written statement. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and parties were allowed to lead their evidence. In this regard, the petitioner/plaintiff produced four P.Ws. And placed on record documentary evidence Ex. P.1 to Ex.P.16. Respondents also got examined three P.Ws. And produced fifteen documents as Ex. D.1 to Ex.D.
15. After providing the opportunity of hearing and considering the available record of the case, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2000 decreed the suit of the present petitioner.
This judgment and decree was challenged before the learned first Appellate Court, which through this impugned judgment and decree dated 20.11.2002 accepted the appeal of the respondent and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that well-reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court has been set aside against the law laid down by the Superior Courts resulting in miscarriage of justice and the view taken by the learned first Appellate Court is contrary to the provision of law.
The judgment of the learned first Appellate Court is against the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the learned first appellate Court passed the judgment according to the record and the law of land and rightly declared the respondent entitled to inherit the entire property belonging to her wife as compared to the present petitioner.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
5. It is appropriate to first to dilate on the pedigree-table according to Ex. P.2, Sajid, who had two sons Imam Din and Pallu. From Imam Din, there was Qaim Din and Mst. Bano, whereas Qaim Din was survived through his daughter Mst. Azmat Bibi and Mst. Bano sister of Qaim Din had one son Muhammad Hussain. Mst. Azniat Bibi was married to Muhammad Hussain. The other son of Sajid was Pallu, the brother of Imam Din, who was survived through Ali Muhammad and Faiz Muhammad. Suleman/respondent is son of Ali Muhammad. These are the relevant legal heirs around whom the controversy involved in this case revolves. Now the dispute, which cropped up between the parties in this case is that Mst. Azmat Bibi died issueless. Her inheritance to the extent of 1/2 share went to Muhammad Hussain her husband as a sharer whereas the remaining 1/2 share was claimed by Muhammad Hussain, as right of return as neither there is any sharer nor residuary.
6. On the other hand, the claim of Suleman is that he is the residue of Mst. Azmat Bibi, therefore, in the presence of the residue Muhammad Hussain has no concern with the inheritance, hence, the dispute culminated in filing of suit and the findings of both the Courts below on' the point of question of law are divergent, therefore, the provisions of the Muhammadan Law was taken into consideration with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. According to the Section 65 of the Muhammadan Law, the estate first exhausted into sharers according to their shares and after distributing among the sharers, any leftover property undistributed went to the residuary and according to table of residuaries in order of succession, the petitioner falls within the category of residue, as he is son of deceased father's real unlce's grandson which falls within the last category of the Reliquaries, therefore, he is entitled to inherit the land in dispute The right of return as claimed by the respondent can only be considered when after exhausting the claim of the sharers, there is no residuary then the residue reverts to the sharers in proportion to their share called return or Radd.
7. Since the petitioner has proved to be the residue according to the Muhammadan Law, therefore, the question of return does not arise and the respondent has no right to claim the property in dispute. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the learned first Appellate Court is against the provision of law and not sustainable.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment/decree of learned first Appellate Court is set aside and the decree of the learned Trial Court stands revived. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.