1. ' SHAH JEHAN. KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---The petitioners herein brought a suit for declaration to the effect that agreement dated 8-3-1997 and transfer letter in respect of transfer of title of Motorcar No, PRC1626, model 1976, Toyota from Inayatullah Khan in favour of Imtiaz Hussain are bogus, fictitious, fabricated, fraudulent and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs and for the recovery of 1/5th share of inheritance out of 1,50,000 received by defendant/respondent No,1 as sale consideration of Motorcar No,PRC-1626. It was further asserted in their plaint that the predecessor of petitioners, namely, Mst.Kaneez Fiza and 'petitioners, namely, Mst.Kaneez Fiza and- respondent/defendant No,1 are brother and sister inter se; that predecessor of plaintiff/ petitioner i,e, Mst.Kaneez Fiza died in the 1994. Motorcar No,PRC 1626 Model 1976 was the ownership of deceased namely Anayatullah Khan father of predecessor of plaintiff/ petitioners and defendants/ respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 which after his death devolved upon his legal heirs.
2. Defendant/respondent No,1 prepared a bogus agreement deed dated 8-3-1997 along with transfer letter in the name of Anayatullah Khan vide which he transferred the title of the motorcar in favour of his nephew defendant/respondent No,2, namely Imtiaz Hussain. Defendants-respondents deprived plaintiff-petitioners from their due share of inheritance. Such transfer was made with connivance of Excise and Taxation Department. Inayatullah Kiyani died on 25-4-1992, while Iqrar Nama was scribed on 8-3-1997. Defendants/respondents Nos.1 and 2 were asked time and again to admit the rights of the plaintiff/petitioners but of no avail. Hence, the present suit. The contesting defendants filed written statement and from the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-- ' Issues.
3. ' Whether plaintiffs have got a cause of action? Whether plaintiffs are estopped to sue? Whether suit of plaintiffs is time barred?
4. ' Whether agreement deed dated 8-3-1997 and transfer letter by Anayatullah Khan for transfer of motorcar bearing Registration No,PRC-1626 Model 1976 in favour of Imtiaz Hussain (defendant No,2) is fake and result of fraud which is ineffective upon the rights of plaintiffs?
5. ' Whether plaintiffs being legal heirs of Mst.Kaneez Fiza are entitled to receive 1/5th share out of total value of disputed motor vehicle?
(6) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for.?
(7) Relief.
6. ' The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording pro and contra evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge-III, Kohat dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs vide his judgment and decree dated 13-11-2010.
7. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, petitioners/plaintiffs filed appeal before the ADJ-V, Kohat which too met the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 11-1-2011. Now, the petitioners/plaintiffs have called in question the concurrent findings of the two Courts below through the instant revision petition.
8. ' Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners were heard and record perused.
9. ' Perusal of the record shows that plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction to the effect that the agreement deed of motorcar mentioned from Inayatullah-Khan in favour of Imtiaz Hussain, respondent No,2 is bogus, factitious, fabricated and fraudulent, therefore, ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs/ petitioners. In the second prayer the petitioners sought recovery for 1/5th share of inheritance out of Rs,1,50,000 received by respondents/ defendants No,1 as sale consideration of the motorcar in question on the grounds that the predecessors of the petitioners Mst.Kaneez Fiza was the daughter of late Inayatullah Kiyani and the vehicle in question was the ownership of the said Anayatullah Khan, which after his death devolved upon his legal heirs including predecessor of the petitioners Mst.Kaneez Fiza and transfer deed agreement dated 8-3-1997 in favour of the defendant-respondent No,2 is the result of fraud and collusion and is liable to be cancelled as the deceased Inayatullah Kiyani died on 25-4-1992 while agreement deed regarding transfer/gift of the motorcar in question was scribed on 8-3-1997.
10. To the contrary the contention of the respondents is that agreement deed dated 8-3-1997 has been made by late date Inayatullah Kiyani in his life time in favour of son of his divorced daughter i,e, respondent No,2. I have also perused the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs which shows that petitioners have failed to substantiate their claim through cogent and conclusive oral or documentary evidence. Because it is established on record that the suit in hand has been instituted by the person having allegedly general power of attorney of the petitioners/plaintiffs who are residing abroad but the said alleged power of attorney has not been produced in original before the Court to substantiate the fact that the alleged attorney was in fact the attorney of the plaintiffs/petitioners. Secondly, it is also on record that one Akhlaq Hussain Kiyani has been shown to represent the said person having general power of attorney on behalf of the original plaintiff by way or a special power of attorney executed in his favour by the person having general power of attorney namely, Kazim Ali Bangash but perusal of the special power of attorney would show that it does not bear the signature of Kazim Ali Bangash, hence in view of the above legal lecuna, it was rightly held by the two Courts below that Kazim Ali Bangash has no locus standi to file the present suit. Moreover, in respect of establishing their claim, petitioners/plaintiffs have failed to produce any cogent, conclusive and reliable oral or documentary evidence. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants have rebutted the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs by producing cogent; reliable and conclusive oral and documentary evidence on record from which it is established in crystal terms that the motorcar in question had been given to Imtiaz Hussain respondent No,2 by the predecessor of the parties namely, Inayatullah Kiyani when he was alive by way of valid gift and thereafter has been registered in his name in the Office of Excise and Taxation Department by way of a valid registration book copy of which is available on the original record.
11. Thus, in view of the above, the process of examination of evidence for upsetting the concurrent findings of fact in exercise of powers under section 115, C.P.C., in my view, is neither- permissible nor warranted by law. I may also mention here that the High Court while examining a concurrent findings of fact' recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Has to attend the reasons given by the Courts below in support of such findings and misreading, non-reading or perverse appreciation of evidence has to be discovered in reasoning of the Courts below to justify interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
12. ' In view of what has been discussed above I have come to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge as well as the learned appellate Court have passed well-reasoned judgments and decrees after proper appraisal of the evidence on the file and thus the same do not at all seem to have been tainted with any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error to warrant interference by this Court while exercise revisional jurisdiction. Hence, revision petition in hand is without substance, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.