This civil revision calls in question the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2015 and 16.02.2013, passed by the learned courts below, whereby the suit for possession through partition filed by the respondents was decreed.
The necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are, that the respondents filed a suit for possession through partition of the suit property on the grounds, that Muhammad Amin deceased, predecessor/father of the parties to the suit, died leaving behind the petitioners/defendants and respondents/plaintiffs as his legal heirs; that Muhammad Amin deceased, at the time of death, left behind the suit property; that the suit property consisted of a residential building and shops which is in joint possession of the parties, therefore, the same be partitioned among the heirs of deceased Muhammad Amin.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners, who are legal heirs of Muhammad Jamil, real son of deceased Muhammad Amin, through written statement, wherein it was alleged, that the respondents, who are daughters of Muhammad Amin, have no concern whatsoever with the suit property, as deceased Muhammad Amin, the predecessor of the parties, in his lifetime, transferred the suit property by way of gift in favour of his real son namely, Muhammad Jamil, the predecessor of the present petitioners.
The learned trial court, out of the controversial pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of the respective parties and finally decreed the suit. The present petitioners/defendants being aggrieved thereof, filed an appeal which was dismissed, hence, this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly argued, that the suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable because of the reason, the proper court fee was not affixed and the suit was not valued in accordance with law. Further contended, that the deceased father of the parties to the suit namely, Muhammad Amin, in his lifetime transferred the property by way of gift in favour of his real son namely, Muhammad Jamil, deceased predecessor of the present petitioners, therefore, the respondents have no concern whatsoever with the suit land. For this purpose, the learned counsel has relied upon the copy of the Assessment Form commonly known as P.T.1 issued by the Excise & Taxation Department. Further submits, that the suit property is in possession of the petitioners from the last forty years and the property tax is being paid by the petitioners or predecessor of the petitioners namely, Muhammad Jamil, therefore, the petitioners have become owner of the suit property.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is not denied, as evident from the record, that parties to the suit are legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Amin, who at the time of his death, left one son and three daughters along with the suit property, the suit property was in the name of the predecessor of the parties namely, Muhammad Amin and still exists in his name and that the petitioners have miserably failed to place on record any document in support of their contention, that the suit property was transferred in the name of their predecessor namely, Muhammad Jamil by the predecessor of the parties and original owner namely, Muhammad Amin. Both the learned courts below have concurrently reached to the conclusion, that the parties to the suit being the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Amin are owner of the property to the extent of their shares, the property is still joint and the petitioners/defendants have failed to bring on record anything to show and prove the transfer of suit property by deceased Muhammad Amin in favour of his son Muhammad Jamil, therefore, it can safely be observed, that the petitioners just to deprive the daughters of deceased Muhammad Amin have taken this ill-founded and misconceived stance but could not prove through any iota of evidence. This proposition has already been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through a landmark judgment cited as Ghulam Ali and 2 others Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under: "It is not so for the first time that it is being so held, Even earlier commentators on Islamic Law (its inheritance branch in particular) have indicated the same approach with reference to some decided cases. The heir in possession was considered to be in constructive possession of the property on behalf of all the heirs in spite of his exclusive possession, e.g., the possession of the brothers would be taken to be the possession of their sisters, unless there was an express repudiation of the claims of the sisters by the brothers. Hyder Khan v. Chanda Khan (501 IC 691 (All).
While dealing with express repudiation and ouster, it was observed that: "There cannot be ouster without a demand and a refusal, or without a clear declaration brought home to the knowledge of the co-sharers that lesser profits were being paid because the others were being ousted from the remainder of the share. A mere omission to pay profits does not in itself constitute ouster, and still less so, when something, though not the whole, is paid. The mere partition among the males without reference to the female heirs does not mean much in the shape of ousting them from their rights. Circumstances may exist in which an inference of knowledge can be drawn, or in which the laches or negligence of the co-owners is so great that knowledge will be presumed but a case of that type would have to be exceptional. The law does not penalise a co-owner who relies on the honesty of his co-sharer, and therefore ordinarily the mere fact that he does not take the trouble to assert his rights as he may be entitled to, would not justify an inference of ouster." (Mohammad Aminudin v. Md. Abdur Rahman 1941 N.L.J. 467)
It has further been observed in the judgment supra: "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."
There are some other judgments of this Court cited as Ghulam Zainab and another v. Said Rasool (2004 CLC 33), Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Ramzan through L.Rs (2007 M LD 1769), Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Attorney v. Khalid Aziz Malik and 6 other (2010 CLD 1 [Lahore]) and Muhammad Asghar and others v. Hakam Bibi through L.Rs and other (2015 CLC 719). In the judgment supra (2007 M LD 1769) it has been observed, that in the case of oral gift, the donee had to prove the time, date and place as to where the offer of gift was made to the donee which was accepted by the donee and how the delivery of possession was made to the donee. In this case, the petitioner simply stated in the pleadings and also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the suit property was transferred by Muhammad Amin, the predecessor of the parties, in favour of Muhammad Jamil, his real son, but the petitioners have miserably failed to bring on record any iota of reliable and confidence inspiring evidence particularly regarding the time, date and place and in whose presence the property was transferred by the predecessor of the parties i.e. Deceased Muhammad Amin in favour of Muhammad Jamil, his son.
7. As regard the valuation of the suit, the learned appellate court has dealt with this aspect of the case in detail and rightly concluded, that simply on this ground, the judgment of the learned trial court, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, could not be set aside.
8. As regard the stance vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the predecessor of the petitioners namely, Muhammad Jamil had been paying the property tax and are in possession of the suit property from the last forty years, therefore, had become the owners. I am afraid, that the stance taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners has any substance or force. It has already been ruled in plethora of judgments and settled principle of law, that the record of Excise & Taxation/Property Tax and P.T.1 issued by the Excise & Taxation Department in any case is not the title document and on the basis of this, nobody can be permitted to grab the inherited property and legal right of any other co-owner/legal heir particularly the daughters who are, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment supra, are the weaker segment of the society. Reliance is placed on Muzaffar Khan v. Sanchi Khan and another (2007 SCM R 181), wherein it is observed, that on the basis of P.T.1 maintained by the Excise & Taxation Department, could not claim to be owner of the property. Reliance is also placed on Sh.
Muhammad Rafique v. Sh. Muhammad Jameel (2015 M LD 642 [Lahore]) and Irfan and 5 others v.
Surriya Jabeen and 4 others (2012 CLC 605 [Lahore]).
9. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners argued the case at length at the preliminary stage but could not point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, misreading and non-reading of evidence, with the concurrent conclusion rendered by the learned courts below, therefore, there is hardly any reason to interfere therewith. I find support from the recent valuable judgment 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). The relevant part of the esteemed judgment is reproduced 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. "
10. Reliance is also placed on Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCM R 1469) and Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCM R 1373).
11. Resultantly, this civil revision has no force and the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost.