Ali Akbar Qureshi, J:- Through this revision petition, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2015 and 18.12.2012, whereby the learned courts below decreed the suit for declaration filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff.
2. The facts as revealed from the record are, that respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration against the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 5, contending therein, that deceased father of respondent No.1/Ghulam Nabbi had two wives namely Mst. Rashida Bibi and Mst. Nasreen Bibi; that respondent No.1/plaintiff is the offspring of the union of deceased Ghulam Nabbi and Mst.
Rashida Bibi; that after the death of her father namely Ghulam Nabbi, respondent No.1/Mst. Rehana Kousar has become the owner to the extent of her share of the property left by the deceased Ghulam Nabbi/her father; that at the time of entering the inheritance mutation, the name of respondent No.1/Mst. Rehana Kousar was not entered by the petitioners and the respondents No.2 to 5 with malafide intention to deprive her from her right of inheritance and lastly prayed, that the inheritance mutation No.169, dated 26.06.1995 pertaining to land situated in village Jalowali, Tehsil Pasrur and mutation No.304 dated 28.02.2005 pertaining to land situated in village Kotli Tararr, Tehsil Pasrur, be declared illegal unlawful and against the law.
3. The suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff was contested by respondent No.2/defendant No.1/Mst.
Rashida Bibi, who is mother of the respondent No.1/plaintiff Mst. Rehana Kausar, through written statement, alleging therein, that respondent No.1 is not her daughter from Ghulam Nabbi; that in fact the respondent No.1 was adopted by her and Ghulam Nabbi and they brought up and married her. Further stated in the written statement, that in fact the respondent No.1 has filed the suit on the asking of her husband and the inheritance mutation was rightly entered in the revenue record.
The other respondents of the petition and the present petitioners also submitted written statement almost on the same ground.
4. The learned trial court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed as many as eight issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and finally decreed the suit. Against which an appeal was filed, which too was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision.
5. It is pertinent to mention here, that the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 Mst. Rashida Bibi, who is mother of respondent No.1/plaintiff, did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court by way of an appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that respondent No.1/plaintiff has miserably failed to prove her relationship as 'daughter' with deceased Ghulam Nabbi. Further submits, that Mst.
Rashida Bibi/respondent No.2 appeared in the witness box and stated, that respondent No.1/plaintiff is not 'daughter' of her from Ghulam Nabbi and in fact she was adopted, therefore, she cannot claim inheritance from the legacy left by deceased Ghulam Nabbi. Also contended, that the witnesses appeared on behalf of the present petitioners/defendants successfully proved the fact, that respondent No.1 is an adopted daughter of deceased Ghulam Nabbi and the suit has been filed just to grab the land owned by other heirs of deceased Ghulam Nabbi.
7. Heard. Record perused.
8. Firstly, it is to be seen as to whether the respondent No.1 namely Rehana Kousar, who is plaintiff in the suit, has succeeded to prove her relationship as 'daughter' with deceased Ghulam Nabbi and Mst. Rashida Bibi. The respondent No.1 in order to prove her assertion appeared in the witness box, recorded her examination-in-chief and during conducting the cross examination, the respondent No.1 fully corroborated the stance taken in the examinationin-chief. Further, the respondent No.1 placed on record the copy of nikahnama (Exh.P1) and certified copy of school leaving certificate Exh.P2, which were exhibited by the learned trial court. In the afore-referred documents, the name of father of the respondent No.1/Mst. Rehana Kousar is mentioned as "Ghulam Nabbi". It is established on record, that these documents have never been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the same still hold the field. Further, during the course of recording the evidence, the petitioners/defendants have miserably failed to rebut the oral as well as documentary assertion made by respondent No.1.
9. On the other hand, although the petitioners and the respondent No.2 to 5 had taken a stance while filing the written statement that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is not real daughter of Ghulam Nabbi (deceased) and Mst. Rashida Bibi, but is an adopted one but as evident from the record, have failed to substantiate their stance through any documentary evidence. So much so the petitioners have failed to produce the most important witnesses namely Manzoor Hussain and Fatima Bibi. According to the petitioners and their witnesses, that the respondent No.1 is in fact is offspring of the union of Manzoor Hussain and Mst. Fatima Bibi but both were never produced in the witness box.
10. During the course of arguments the evidence produced by the petitioner/defendant was perused. DW-1 stated in cross examination that the respondent No.1 had been leasing out the suit property after the death of Ghulam Nabbi till today, whereas DW-2 stated, that the land in question left by deceased Ghulam Nabbi is being cultivated by Mst. Rashida Bibi her widow and daughter Mst. Rehana Kouar (respondent No.1) and lastly that respondent No.1 is in possession of the suit property since the death of her father Ghulam Nabbi.
11. In view of above, it can safely be held that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has successfully proved her case therefore, it has rightly been concluded by the learned courts below that respondent No.1/Mst. Rehana Kousar being one of the legal heir of deceased Ghulam Nabbi is entitled to the extent of her share out of the legacy left by her father Ghulam Nabbi.
12. It is an astonishing fact that as per the record, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit impleading her mother namely Rashida Bibi as defendant No.1; the suit was decreed against Mst. Rashida Bibi but she had not filed any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Mst. Rashida Bibi who is admittedly the widow of Ghulam Nabbi and has been proved the "mother" of respondent No.1 through the concurrent conclusion drawn by the learned Courts below had filed her independent written statement before the learned trial court wherein she vehemently controverted the stance of the respondent No.1 and if no appeal has been filed by Mst. Rashida Bibi against the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent No.1, meaning thereby respondent No.1 Mst. Rashida Bibi has admitted the findings of the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, wherein the claim of the respondent No.1 as 'daughter' of Ghulam Nabbi and Mst.
Rashida Bibi has been proved.
Further, Mst. Rashida Bibi had no option in law to accept Mst. Rehana Kousar as her 'daughter' in compliance of the verdict given by learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court. Even otherwise, only Mst. Rashida Bibi, is the best person to 'admit' or 'deny' the status of Mst. Rehana Kousar and if Mst. Rashida Bibi had admitted Mst. Rehana Kousar as her 'daughter', the case of other legal heirs would definitely effect and become weak. It is also pertinent to mention here that Mst. Rashida Bibi neither filed any appeal nor a civil revision before this Court. Therefore, it can safely be held, that Mst. Rehana Kousar is the offspring of the union of Ghulam Nabbi and Rashida Bibi and is entitled to the extent of her share out of the legacy left by her father Ghulam Nabbi.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has already dealt with this proposition in judgments cited as "Mst. Asma Naz v. Muhammad Younas" (2005 SCM R 401) and "Mst. Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Mehr Ghulam Dastagir Khan and another" (PLD 2015 SC 327).
The relevant part of the judgment (supra) "Mst. Asma Naz v. Muhammad Younas" (2005 SCM R 401) is reproduced hereunder: "It may be noted that according to Mohammadan Law right of inheritance is extended to a heir whose legitimate status is accepted, otherwise, such right neither can be extended nor acquired. It is also a settled proposition of law that the legitimate or illegitimate status of a person is established in view of the proof of birth but in a case where such proof is not coming forward, then on the rule of acknowledgment by an acknowledger, in respect of status of a person, a conclusive presumption can be drawn that he/she is his/her legitimate child and once such status is confirmed, it cannot be destroyed by any subsequent act of the acknowledger, or of anyone claiming through him, as it has been held in the case of "Muhammad Allahdad Khan and another v.
Muhammad Ismail Khan and others" (1888 ILR. Vol.X Allahabad 289). In this report another important question was also highlighted i.e. "if a man acknowledges another to be his son and other be nothing, which obviously renders it impossible that such relation should exist between them, the parentage will be established." Reference may also be made to the case of "Muhammad Azmat Ali Khan v. Lalli Begum and others" (I.L.R. Vol. IX page 8) wherein their lordships of Privy Council observed that "according to Muhammadon Law the acknowledgement and recognition of children by a father as his sons gives them the status of sons, capable of inheriting as legitimate sons. Such acknowledgment may be in the express or 'implied, in the latter case the inference from the acts of father must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case."
Applying the principle laid down in the judgment (supra) on the facts of the case in hand, the respondent No.2/Mst. Rashida Bibi and her husband/Ghulam Nabbi (deceased) in whole of their lives acknowledged respondent No.1/Mst. Rehana Kausar their 'daughter'. She was brought up by them and in School leaving Certificate (Exh.P2) name of Ghulam Nabbi deceased is mentioned in the column of 'father'. Likewise, she was married by them and in the column of parentage of the Nikahnama (Exh.P1), name of Ghulam Nabbi deceased is mentioned. Therefore, it is sufficient material to hold, that the respondent No.1/Mst. Rehana Kausar is daughter of respondent No.2/Mst.
Rashida Bibi and Ghulam Nabbi deceased.
13. In these circumstances, the petitioners and the respondent No.3 to 5 namely Mst. Naziran Bibi (deceased) through her legal heirs, Abdul Aziz and Ghulam Qadir respectively, had no case to the extent of respondent No.1/Mst. Rehana Kausar's share in the property left by her father, as the respondent No.2/Mst. Rashida Bibi had admitted respondent No.1/plaintiff Mst. Rehana Kousar in result of judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, her own daughter.
14. From the above discussion it appears, that the petitioners and the respondents No.2 to 5 have in fact tried to deprive the respondent No.1 from her right of inheritance as usually happens in our society. This practice has already been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the landmark judgment cited as "Ghulam Ali and 2 others Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi" (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed, that the women, who are weaker segment of the society, should not be deprived from their right of inheritance in the name of customs or by emotionally exploiting them. The relevant portion is reproduced as under: "As is discussed in the case of Haji Nizam (approved in Mohammad Bashir's case) which was also a case of clash of Islamic principles against those of other systems-a widowed daughter-in-law, seeking maintenance for her minor child against the grandfather, it is the duty of the Courts within the permissible fields, as specified therein, to enforce Islamic law and principles. This case also required similar, if not better, treatment. The scope of rights of inheritance of females (daughter in this case) is so wide and their thrust so strong that it is the duty of the Courts to protect and enforce them, even if the legislative action for this purpose of protection in accordance with Islamic Jurisprudence, is yet to take its own time.
In the rural areas where 80% of the female population resides, the inheritance rights of the females are not as protected and enforced, as Islam requires. Cases similar to this do come up even to Supreme Court. In a very large majority of them the Courts act rightly and follow the correct rules.
But it is a wide guess as to how many females take the courage of initiation or continuing the legal battle with their close one in matters of inheritance, when they are being deprived. The percentage is very low indeed. Neither the Courts nor the law as at present it stands interpreted, are to be blamed. The social organizations including those in the legal field are yet to show up in the rural area. They are mostly managed by Urban volunteers. When will they be able to move out of mostly managed by Urban volunteers. When will they be able to move out of sophisticated methods of American speech/ seminar system and all that goes with it, in the enlightened urban society? It is a pity that while an ubranised brother, who is labourer in a neighbouring Mill, has the protection of such mass of Labour Laws; which sometimes even Courts find it difficult properly to count-right from the definition of 'rights', up to the enforcement' even in homes, through 'Social Security' Laws, with web of network of 'Inspectorates' etc. Who are supposed to be helping him at every step, his unfortunate sister, who is deprived of her most valuable rights of inheritance even today by her own kith and kin-sometimes by the urbanized brother himself, is not even cognizant of all this. She is not being educated enough about her rights. Nearly four decades have passed. A new set up is needed in this behalf. Social Organizations run by women have not succeeded in rural field. They may continue for the urban areas where their utility might also be improved and upgraded. At the same time they need to be equipped with more vigorous training in the field of Islamic learning and teachings. They should provide the bulk of research in Islamic Law and principles dealing with women. It is not the reinterpretation alone which is the need of the day but a genuine effort by them for the reconstruction of the Islamic concepts in this field. It cannot be achieved by the use of alien manner or method alone."
15. Although learned counsel for the petitioners argued the case at some length but could not point out any illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional defect in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below. It has been ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, that the concurrent findings on facts should not be interfered in routine, but in an extra ordinary circumstance, when the learned courts below have committed serious jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.
I find support from the valuable judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, titled "Cantonment Board through Executive Officer Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCM R 161), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCM R 1469), Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCM R 1373), Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCM R 984), Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another (2008 SCM R 428), and "Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Kallu and others"
(2008 SCM R 452), that the High Court, in the case of concurrent findings, normally does not interfere unless the same is result of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the learned courts below.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its recent judgment (supra) titled "Cantonment Board through Executive Officer Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others" (2014 SCM R 161) observed as under:- "In other words, the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Under which a High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction, confer an exceptional and necessary power intended to secure effective exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or fact, which do not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the Court. In the instant case, the learned High Court, in law, could not have investigated into the facts or exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of facts or grounds, which were already proved by the parties by leading evidence. We are of the considered view that the judgment impugned in these proceedings is unexceptionable. The learned High Court was justified in not interfering in the concurrent findings of fact which were based on the material brought on record and proper appreciation of evidence. "
16. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the learned courts below. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with cost.