AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. - Through this civil revision, petitioners- defendants have challenged the judgment & decree dated 12.01.2001 passed by learned Addl. District judge, Bahawalpur, whereby the appeal filed by them was dismissed and judgment & decree dated 30.06.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Bahawalpur, whereby the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to this civil revision are that Mst. Amna Bibi (respondent No. 1) on 18.01.1994 filed a suit for declaration alleging therein that she being the daughter of Fateh Din is entitled to inherit him 1/15 share and challenged mutation No. 18 attested on 16.04.1980.
The written statement was filed and suit was contested by some of the defendants, whereas some of the defendants filed consenting written statement. Learned Trial Court on 27.03.1995 framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the close of trial, vide judgment & decree dated 30.06.1998 suit was decreed by learned Trial Court. An appeal was preferred before the first Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 12.01.2001. Hence, this civil revision.
3. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners have been heard.
4. The main emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioners is that mutation of inheritance of Fateh Din was entered on 13.04.1950 on the basis of order of Assistant Commissioner dated 03.01.1949, therefore Section 20 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was applicable, as Section 19-A of said Act had been introduced in the year 1951, so the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is not supported through any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. It is admitted that mutation was attested on 16.04.1980 and it was entered on 13.04.1950. There is a reference of some order of Assistant Commissioner dated 03.01.1949 but the said order of Assistant Commissioner has not been produced in evidence. If the factual contention of learned counsel for the petitioners be admitted as true, even then his prayer that Section 20 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was applicable and plaintiff was not entitled to the decree and receive share of inheritance of Fateh Din because learned counsel states that no proprietary rights were transferred in the name of Fateh Din. Section 20 of above-said Act advises only if the propositus is original tenant but nowhere it has been proved that Fateh Din was the original tenant For application of Section 20 and excluding the daughters or female heirs, it is a pre-condition that the propositus must be the original tenant, if anyone else was original tenant then Section 20 does not apply. Furthermore, there are concurrent findings of facts in the matter recorded by two Courts below. The only point urged before this Court allegedly to be a legal point is also not helpful for the petitioners. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. Has been made out. As such, this civil revision having no substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.