The instant civil revision is directed against the judgments & decrees passed by Courts below by way of which suit for declaration filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that Mst. Satto deceased was owner to the extent of 1/8 share in Khata No. 14, to 20 while to the extent of 1/20 share in Khata No. 21 and was also owner in Shamlat Deh of Khata No. 22 of Revenue Estate of village Thathi Asaish. It was further alleged in the plaint that Satto was married to Ditta son of Dadoo and out of this wedlock, Sohna, Muhammad sons, Bano and Rahmoon petitioners were born. That after the death of Ditta, Mst. Satto contracted marriage with Bahawali and out of this wedlock Mst. Muradan Respondent No. 1 was born. It was further asserted in the plaint that Satto deceased died on 18.03.1953 and a mutation of Inheritance No. 74 dated 20.12.1955 was attested in favour of Mst. Muradan, Sona, Rahmoon Jahana, Sardara and Mst Fatima. The petitioners have challenged the validity of Mutation No. 74 dated 20.12.1955 which was allegedly sanctioned on the basis of fraud and forgery.
3. Defendants appeared before the learned trial Court and contested the suit by tooth and nail while submitting their written statement. The main claim of the defendants was that Mst Muradan Respondent No. 1 was sole daughter of Satto and Bahwali. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed necessary issues including relief. Both the parties got recorded their oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides at length dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment & decree dated 11.07.1996.
Petitioners preferred an appeal which also met with the same fate by the learned appellate Court on 29.04.1999. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgments & decrees petitioners have filed the instant civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned judgments & decrees passed by the Courts below are against law and facts and also based upon surmises and conjectures; that Mst. Satto was the owner of the property in dispute, firstly she was married with Ditta and out of this wedlock, Sohna, Muhammad sons, Bano and Rahmoon daughters were born. Further argued that after the death of Ditta she was married with Bhawli and out of said union Mst. Muradan was born.
That on 18.03.1953 when Satto died, her mutation of inheritance was wrongly entered and attested vide Mutation No. 74 , dated 20.12.1955 in favour of Mst. Muradan alongwith her collaterals excluding the petitioners. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioners and Respondent No. 1 being the legal heirs of Mst. Satto were only entitled to get the property in dispute.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that petitioners have failed to prove that petitioners were the legal heirs of Mst. Satto. There are material contradictions in the statements of the PWs. That suit of the petitioners is badly barred by time. Further argued that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below against the petitioners. Lastly learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgments & decrees of the Courts below.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Petitioners have alleged in the plaint that Mst. Satto deceased was owner of the property in dispute. Firstly she was married with Ditta and out of said wedlock plaintiffs were born. It has been further alleged in the plaint that after the death of Ditta Mst. Satto was married with one Bhawli and out of this wedlock Mst. Muradan was born. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they and Mst.
Muradan Bibi was only legal heirs of Mst. Satto and were entitled to get the property in dispute.
They further alleged in the plaint that the mutation in dispute according to which property in dispute was transferred in favour of Mst. Muradan Sohna, Jahana, Sardara and Mst. Fatima is based upon fraud and misrepresentation. The main dispute in this case is whether Mst. Satto was real mother of plaintiffs or not. To prove the case Bano one of the plaintiff appeared as PW. 1 and stated in her statement that the name of her mother was Satto and name of her father was Taja.
She further stated that they were three sisters, Bano, Muradan and Rahmoon and two brothers namely Soohna and Muhammad. In the plaint the version of the plaintiffs was that the name of their father was Ditta and Muradan was born out of the wedlock of Mst. Satto and Bhawli. PW.1 Bano has taken totally different stand from the version which she has taken in her plaint. Moreover in her examination-in-chief she has stated that the name of her father was Sohna. Similarly PW.2 Noora has disclosed that Mst. Satto was having three daughters namely Bano, Rahmoon and Muradan and two sons Muhammad and Sohna. PW.3 Yara has stated in his statement that Mst. Muradan was their stepsister. He has shown his ignorance that the said Muradan was only daughter of Bhawli. PW.4 Muhammad Hayat has also deposed in a very strange manner while saying that Sohna and Muhammad two brothers and three sisters Mst. Rahmoon, Muradan and Bano were legal heirs/ children of Mst. Satto.
8. On the other hand, respondents have successfully proved this fact that Mst. Muradan was the only daughter of Mst. Satto. Bhawli was the husband of Mst. Satto and she did not contract marriage with Ditta. From the perusal of whole the record it reveals that petitioners have failed to prove their relationship with Mst. Satto. They have taken different stands in their plaint and evidence. There are material and glaring contradictions in the statements of the PWs. They have not supported the version through oral evidence which they have taken in the plaint. After careful scanning of record I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to prove that they were legal heirs of Mst. Satto or Mst. Muradan was their step-sister.
9. Record further reflects that mutation in dispute was attested on 20.12.1955 whereas the petitioners filed the suit on 09.03.1987 after more than 30 years which is badly barred by time.
Evidence of the petitioners did not show that when and how they came to know about the impugned mutations. The claim of the petitioners that they came to know about the impugned sale four years prior to the institution of the suit is an after-thought story which cannot be believed.
Moreover petitioners have not produced any document on record to prove that they were in possession of any part of the property in dispute.
10. Further-more there are concurrent findings of facts in the matter and the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have taken into consideration all the material aspects of the case. Findings of the lower Courts on question of facts and law based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led in the suit were not susceptible to review to be upset or substituted in revisional jurisdiction. The findings' of the Courts below based on material on record would not be amenable to interfere with in revisional jurisdiction.
11.Resultantly, this revision petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to costs.