Petitioner, Mst. Samin Bibi has impugned the concurrent findings of the two Courts below whereby the appeal filed by her, against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2012 of Civil Judge-V, Charsadda was dismissed by the learned Addl.District Judge-I, Charsadda vide judgment and decree dated 26.1.2013.
2. Brief facts of, the case are that. Mg. Samin Bibi, petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent ,injunction, possession and recovery of mesne profit against Muslim Khan and others respondents/defendants regarding the legacy of her parents and Mst. Taj Bibi. It is averred in the plaint that the petitioner/plaintiff and Respondents/Defendants No, 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of late Aslam Khan and Mst. Taj Bibi, who were owners of the property situated at Mauza Umer Zai District Charsadda and after their death they being the legal heirs are entitled to the said property; that she privately approached the revenue officials to attest inheritance mutation of her predecessors but they refused; that Respondent/Defendant No, 1 has entered a forged and fictitious tamleek Mutation No, 8443 dated 14.4.1996 on behalf of his father Aslam Khan in his favour that her father had not transferred any property in favour of Respondent/Defendant No, 1 and the said, tamleek is the result of fraud and collusion among revenue authorities because her father was illiterate and not in cordial relation with Respondent/Defendant No, 1, that during the pendency of the suit, Respondent/Defendant No, 1 had entered and attested an inheritance mutation of their predecessors regarding some of the property and also attested exchange Mutation No, 9504 and 9505 attested on 4.10.2010 in favour of Ikram-ud-Din, Respondent/Defendant No 5 which are ineffective upon her rights and that the respondents/defendants were asked to admit the claim of the plaintiff enter attest inheritance mutation regarding entire legacy of Aslam Khan and Mst. Taj Bibi and also cancel the aforesaid mutation but they refused. Hence the present suit.
3. This suit was contested by the contestant respondents/ defendants through submission of their written statement. After framing of issues recording of pro and contra evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge-V. Charassida aide his judgment and decree dated 10.11.2012 dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff.
4. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal No, 26/13 in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge-I, Charsadda which was too met the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 26.1.2013. Hence, .the, instant revision petition.
5. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff is that tamleek Mutation No, 8443 dated 14.4.1996 attested by late Aslam Khan in favour of Muslim Khan, Respondent/Defendant No, 1 and exchange Mutation Nos, 9504 and 9505 attested on 4.10.2010 regarding the suit property are wrong, void and liable to cancellation.
6. The moot question for determination by this Court is that whether late Aslam Khan, predecessor of petitioner/plaintiff and Respondents/Defendants No, 1 and 2 had transferred the suit property through tamleek Mutation No, 8443 attested on 14.4.1996 in favour of Respondent/Defendant' No, 1 or not. The stance of Muslim Khan, Respondent/Defendant No, 1 is that his deceased father Aslam Khan was living with him and at his own free will he had transferred the suit property to him and before attestation, a tamleek deed/tamleek nama dated 19.4.1995 Ex.DW-3/1 has been scribed and thereafter a tamleek Mutation No, 8443 was attested on 14.4.1996 and possession was also delivered to him. During the life time of his father, the petitioner/ plaintiff or the other legal heirs have not objected to the said mutation. Admittedly, Aslam Khan was the owner of the suit property.
In ,order to prove the gift mutation in question the Respondent/Defendant No, 1 has produced Shahab, DW-1 who stated that his father Muhammad Azam was lumberdar and now he has been died. He further stated that his deceased father has signed the Mutation No, 8443 correctly and he verified the signature of his father. Tariq Hassan, Ex-Naib Tehsildar appeared as DW-2 and stated that he had correctly attested the gift mutation on 14.4.1996 in a public gathering. Fazal Ullah, petition writer appeared as DW-3 and stated that he had scribed the deed dated 19.4.1995 and has been correctly incorporated in his register at Sr.No, 310. Shah Khalid/o Abdullah Ex-Patwari has appeared as DW-4 and had identified the signature of his father on the tamleek Mutation No, 8443.
Muslim Khan, Respondent/Defendant No, 1 has appeared as DW5 and supported his claim. Yasir Arafat, appeared as DW-6 and identified the signature of his deceased father on tamleek mutation in question as an marginal witness. Gul Rahim appeared as DW-7 and stated that he is the marginal witness of tamleek mutation and hail correctly thumb impressed the same. Further deposed that Fazle Rokhan the other marginal witness of the mutation had also correctly thumb impressed the same and at the time of attestation of the said mutation Aslam Khan and Azam Khan were also present and had correctly signed it. On the other hand, petitioner/plaintiff has failed to establish her claim by way of producing cogent, confidence inspiring and conclusive evidence.
7. Thus, in view of the above, the process of examination of evidence, on file 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.
8. 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 material irregularity or jurisdictional error to warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Hence revision petition in hand is without substance, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.