' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN Through this civil revision the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bahawalnagar dated 13-7-1995 whereby their appeal was dismissed and against the judgment and decree dated 4-12-1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge Minchinabad whereby the suit of the respondents was decreed.
2. Respondent Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah filed a suit for declaration that he is the only son of Latifan Bibi deceased, challenged Mutation No,336 sanctioned on 8-4-1967 and Farad Bader prepared on 28-4-1988 and order of Assistant Commissioner, Minchinabad dated 31-10-1989.
3. The main contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint are that Mst. Nehmat widow of Rehmat Ali was his maternal grandmother. She was owner of 85 kanals 5 marlas of land at the time of her death.
She was survived by her three daughters one of whom was Mst. Latifan, his mother. He stated that Mst. Nehmat died in the year 1962 whereas his mother died in the year 1967. He further contended that Mutation No,660 dated 7-10-1987 the inheritance of his mother was sanctioned. He was the sole heir of, his mother and whole the property left by her devolved upon him. He further contended that Jamabandies for the years 1969-1970, 1973-1974, 1981-1982 and 1985-1986 were correctly recorded wherein he was shown to be 1/3rd share holder of the whole property left by his maternal grandmother Nehmat Bibi. He contended that Mutation No,336 dated 8-4-1967 was wrongly sanctioned in favour of Mst. Salamat and Mst. Wasiqan excluded his mother and further contended that Fard Badar was wrongly prepared.
4. On the other hand, petitioners/ defendants by filing their written statement stated that Mutation No,336 was correctly attested on 8-4-1967 and the plaintiff has challenged this mutation in this suit filed on 10-1-1990 which was clearly time-barred. Further contended that this mutation relates with regard to Settlement Department, therefore, civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
Further contended that Mst. Nehmat Bibi died before 1954 and Mst. Latifan was pre-deceased daughter of Mst. Rehmat Bibi. She died before creation of Pakistan. They submitted that Mst. Latifan died before the death of her mother, therefore, she was not entitled to inherit her property. Further contended that Mutation No,336 was in the knowledge of the plaintiff from the date of its sanction.
5. The learned trial court on the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the issues on 19-7-1990.
The most relevant and pivotal issue is issue No,6 in the suit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Mutation No, 336 dated 8-4-1967 was rightly sanctioned. Further contends that Syed Khurshid Ahmad Shah plaintiff/respondent with connivance of the revenue staff fraudulently got his name entered in Jamabandi for the year 1969- 1970. There was no backing of law or any order from the competent forum for incorporating his name in the Jamabandi. It is clear that while sanctioning Mutation No,336 dated 8-4-1967 the share of inheritance was devolved upon Salamat and Wasiqan. Further contends that they have rightly moved the application before the Assistant Commissioner for Fard Badar which was rightly sanctioned. Further contends that on the record Exh.D-1 the mutation of inheritance of. Mst. Nehmat Bibi was available. This was sanctioned in the year 1954 in Tehsil Depalpur. This mutation shows that Mst. Nehmat Bibi died after migration in the year 1952. It also shows that when Mst.Nehmat Bibi died her daughters namely Salamat and Wasiqan were alive. It further shows that Syed Khursheed Ahmad Shah plaintiff/respondent himself appeared before Tehsildar and that both the courts below have failed to consider Exh.P-1; that the findings recorded by both the courts below are result of non-reading and misreading of evidence on the file.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents states that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below in their favour and the same cannot be interfered by this Court by exercising revisional powers under section 115 of the C.P.C. Further contends that the suit was rightly filed and the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
9.In my view issue No,6 is a material issue which requires scrutiny by this court. In order to reach at a correct conclusion the relation between the parties is not denied. The attestation of mutation of inheritance of Mst. Nehmat Bibi bearing No,336 dated 8-4-1967 in favour of Salamat and Wasiqan is not denied. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the, date of death of Mst. Nehmat and Mst. Latifan' The next point is that how the name of Mst. Latifan came in the Jamabandi for the year 19691970; whether the suit was within time and whether the civil court was having no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. As this civil revision was admitted on the point that in written statement there is preliminary objection No,2 with regard to the jurisdiction of civil court and no issue has been framed therein. I have seen the written statement no doubt this objection is in the written statement but "I think that defendants have not given serious attention to this objection during all the proceedings of the suit. Even otherwise I have seen that in Mutation No,336 dated 8- 4-1967 there is no mention that this property was yet under administration of the Settlement Department, therefore, there is no need to further probe into or go in the depth of this objection, therefore, I find that the civil Court has the jurisdiction to- entertain the suit.
10 Now I come to Mutation No,336 dated 8-4-1967. No doubt under this mutation the inheritance of Mst. Nehmat was' devolved on Salamat and Wasiqan. The name of Mst. Latifan not mentioned in this mutation which has been produced as Exh.P-10. The plaintiff/respondent failed to show that how the name of her mother came in the Jamabandi without any backing of law or any document, then how she became the' owner of 1/3rd share of property. The plaintiff/respondent absolutely failed to prove this fact that his mother was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property, therefore, so called mutation of inheritance No,660 dated 7-10-1987 Exh.P-3 was in his favour as a sole legal heir of Latifan Bibi and when this position is clear, then the order by A.C_ Farad Badar Exhs.P-4 and P-5 were validly given. It seems that in order to save the illegalities committed by the plaintiff in connivance A with the revenue staff he filed the suit in hand to perpetuate these illegalities. Plaintiff was bound to prove his case on the basis of clear un rebutted evidence, but he miserably failed to prove his case on the basis of evidence produced on the file.
11. On the other hand, the evidence produced by the defendants clearly proves their stand. Even subsiding the oral evidence of both the parties the documentary evidence is rich enough to reach to a right conclusion, Exh.D-1 mutation of inheritance of Mst. Nehmat Bibi shows that Latifan was her predeceased daughter. It was sanctioned on 12-11-1954 in which the death of Mst. Nehmat has been shown in the year 1952. At that time only two daughters Mst. Salamat and Wasiqan were alive.
It shows that the plaintiff Syed Khurshed Ahmad Shah appeared before the Tehsildar on the sanction of this mutation. The plaintiff failed to establish the date of death of Mst. Nehmat Bibi and his mother Mst. Latifan. The do6ument Exh.D-5 is with regard to the mutation of inheritance of father of the plaintiff. This was sanctioned on 10-6-1955 wherein it is reported that father of the plaintiff died during the riots of 1947, in this mutation plaintiff has been shown his sole legal heir, therefore, this document clearly goes against the stand of the plaintiff. Ignoring or misinterpreting this important documentary evidence both the courts below fell in error, therefore, they reached to 'a wrong conclusion.
12. The plaintiff was present at the time of sanctioning Mutation No,336 dated 8-4-1967 and filing of this suit in the year 1990 was clearly time-barred.
13. In the light of above discussion I allow this civil revision, set aside the findings of both the courts below recorded on issues Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6. Resultantly the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs stand dismissed.
P.