Atir Mahmood, J.: Through this civil revision, petitioners have challenged vires of judgment and decree dated 10.07.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar who dismissed appeal of the petitioners and upheld judgment and decree dated 12.10.2005 passed by learned Civi Judge 1st Class, Bahawalnagar whereby suit of petitioners Mst. Razia Begum etc. was dismissed whereas suit of the respondents Mst. Shahnaz Begum etc. was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Shahnaz Begum (hereinafter called as respondent-plaintiff) filed suit No.729/02 against petitioners Mst. Razia Begum etc. (hereinafter called as petitioners- defendants) challenging mutation No.563 sanctioned on 08.02.1999 in favour of the petitioners with the averments that she is daughter of one Fateh Muhammad who was owner of land measuring 498 kanals and 9 marlas, fully described in the plaint; that Fateh Muhammad contracted two marriages; that first wife of Fateh Muhammad was Mst. Jannat Bibi who happened to be her real mother; that Mst. Jannat Bibi died on 15.02.1980; that Mst. Razia Begum was second wife of Fateh Muhammad and from this wedlock, there are two sons namely Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Ashraf and one daughter Ghulam Zohran; that Fateh Muhammad died on 02.02.1990; that the plaintiff contracted marriage in Arain Brathery against wishes of her family members who had no contact with her and had made her social boycott due to grudge on account of contracting marriage against their wishes; that after death of her father, the disputed mutation was sanctioned depriving the plaintiff from her legal and Islamic share of inheritance in the property left by her father; that earlier, the plaintiff challenged mutation No.563 before Assistant Commissioner, Minchinabad but her appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.1990; that she filed revision petition which also remained abortive and was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2002 by EDO Revenue, Bahawalnagar.
3. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement. They also filed suit No.194/03 against the respondent-plaintiff. The defendants admitted Mst. Jannat Bibi as wife of Fateh Muhammad but took plea that Fateh Muhammad divorced Mst. Jannat Bibi on 28.05.1970 and at that time, Mst. Shahnaz Begum was not born; that after getting divorce from Fateh Muhammad, Mst. Jannat Bibi contracted marriage with Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Ali on 14.09.1971 and out of this wedlock, Mst. Shahnaz Begum was born on 16.08.1972.
4. Mst. Shahnaz Begum contested suit filed by the defendants asserting that she was born on 13.02.1969, which entry was made on 20.02.1969 in Union Council Fadai Shah and the suit of the defendants has no purpose but to deprive the plaintiff from her legal share of inheritance.
5. Both the suits were consolidated. Learned trial court framed consolidated issues, recorded oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties and then hearing both sides decreed the suit of the plaintiff Mst. Shahnaz Begum and dismissed the suit of the petitioners Mst. Razia Begum etc. vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeals No.172 and 173 of 2006 which were dismissed vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 10.10.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar. Hence this civil revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that learned courts below while delivering the impugned judgments and decrees have not taken into consideration Exh.D-2, Exh.D-5, Exh.D33, Exh.P-15/A, Exh.P-17 and Exh.P-44; that respondent-defendant being daughter of Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Ali has no right to inherit from property left by Fateh Muhammad; that the impugned judgments and decrees are against law and fact; that there is misreading and non- reading of evidence, therefore, this civil revision be allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside, suit of the respondent-plaintiff be dismissed whereas suit of the petitioners- defendants be decreed as prayed for.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent defendant has vehemently opposed this civil revision and fully supported the impugned judgments and decrees. The crux of his arguments is that the respondent Mst. Shahnaz Begum is daughter of Fateh Muhammad but the petitioners- defendants are adamant to deprive her from her lawful share of inheritance.
8. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record made available before me.
9. The core issue in this case is whether or not Mst. Shahnaz Begum is daughter of Fateh Muhammad.
10. Scanning of record reveals that respondent-plaintiff Mst. Shahnaz Begum asserts that she was born on 13.02.1969 out of wedlock of Fateh Muhammad with Mst. Jannat Bibi, therefore, she is entitled to inherit from Fateh Muhammad whereas the petitioners-defendants though admit marriage of Mst. Jannat Bibi with Fateh Muhammad but contend that Mst. Jannat Bibi, after getting divorce from Fateh Muhammad, contracted marriage with Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Ali on 14.09.1971 and out of this wedlock, Mst. Shahnaz Begum was born on 16.08.1972, therefore, she is daughter of Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Ali and not that of Fateh Muhammad, as such, she is not entitled to inherit from Fateh Muhammad.
11. The main emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants is that learned courts below, while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, have ignored Exh. D-2, Exh.D-5, Exh.D- 33, Exh.P-15/A, Exh.P-17 and Exh. P-44 which has materially affected the decision of learned courts below resulting in miscarriage of justice to the petitioners-defendants. Said documents are being discussed in the succeeding paragraphs one by one.
12. Exh.D-2 is an application dated 19.08.1972 filed by Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Ali before Magistrate, 1st Class, Minchinabad whereby Ahmad Din submitted that Mst. Jannat Bibi had given birth to a girl three days before, therefore, she was not able to attend the court, as such, her bail as well as surety bonds be not forfeited. This document neither states that Mst. Jannat Bibi was wife of Ahmad Din at that time nor that the girl mentioned hereinbefore was Mst. Shahnaz Begum. Therefore, it cannot be inferred from this document that Mst. Jannat Bibi was wife of Ahmad Din alias Ahmed Ali or Mst.
Jannat Bibi had given birth to Mst. Shahnaz Begum at that time.
13. Exh. D-5 is a copy of certificate of talaq dated 28.07.1970 given by Fateh Muhammad to Mst.
Jannat Bibi but there is no mention of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi therein. This is a disputed document as it did not come from proper custody and none come forward to prove its authenticity Exh. D-33 is a certified copy of nikahnama which shows that marriage of Mst. Jannat Bibi with Ahmed Din was held on 14.09.1971. There is also a certified copy of private compliant (Exh.D-3) on file which was lodged by Fateh Muhammad on 23.11.1971. In the said private complainant, Fateh Muhammad himself stated that he contracted marriage with Mst. Jannat Bibi on 04.05.1966 whereafter Mst.
Jannat Bibi performed her matrimonial obligations with him for 5 1/4 years and then, about three months prior to lodging of the private complaint, left his house and contracted marriage with Ahmed Din alias Ahmad Ali illegally unlawfully. This document is relied upon by the defendants himself. The stateent of Fateh Muhammad given in the private complaint is sufficient to show that at least till prior to three months of lodging of the private complaint on 23.11.1971, Mst. Jannat Bibi was wedded wife of Fateh Muhammad which fact is corroborated by nikahnama (Exh.D-33) of Ahmad Din with Mst. Jannat Bibi.
14. Others documents which according to learned counsel for the petitioners have not been taken into account by learned courts below are Exh.P-15/A, Exh.P-17 and Exh. P-44. Exh. P-15/A is certified copy of Form Alif submitted by Mst. Shahnaz Begum while applying for her National Identity Card wherein her parentage is given as Fateh Muhammad. Exh.P-17 is a certified copy of register of the Citizen Code Number. In this document, the names of Mst. Jannat Bibi as wife of Fateh Muhammad and Mst. Shahnaz Begum as daughter of Fateh Muhammad are clearly written. Whereas Exh. P-44 is a certified copy of nikahnama of Mst. Shahnaz Begum with Muhammad Yaseen. This document also reflects name of Fateh Muhammad as father of Mst. Shahnaz Begum. In addition, there is a certified copy of birth certificate of Mst. Shahnaz Begum exhibited as Exh. P-26. According to this document, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi was born on 13.02.1969 and this entry was made in the Union Council Fadai Shah on 20.02.1969. The name of Fateh Muhammad as father of Mst. Shanaz Begum is also clearly given in this document as well. This document was not challenged by the petitioners- defendants before any competent forum from which inference can be drawn that they admit contents of this document.
15. Furthermore, the petitioners-defendants produced Abdul Sattar, Secretary Union Council Fadai Shah, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar who brought Register of Births with him. He deposed that Shahnaz Begum was born on 13.02.1969 and entry to this effect was made on 20.02.1969. He further deposed that in the column of father, name of Fateh Muhammad s/o Muhammad Ramzan is present. This witness was produced by the petitioners-defendants who deposed against them but they did not opt to cross-examine this witness meaning thereby they admitted whatever he said.
16. All the documentary as well as oral evidence discussed hereinabove unequivocally show that Mst. Shahnaz Bibi was born on 13.02.1969 out of wedlock of Fateh Muhammad with Mst. Jannat Bibi.
The version of the plaintiff is not only supported by the PWs and documentary evidence available on record but also by the statement of DW.6 Abdul Sattar, Secretary Union Council Fadai Shah who was produced by the defendants themselves. The petitioners-defendants have failed to bring on record any document in support of their stance and to rebut assertion of the respondent-plaintiff Mst. Shahnaz Begum. It is only verbal assertion of the petitioners-defendants that Mst. Shahnaz Bibi is not daughter of Fateh Muhammad. Presumption of truth is attached to thirty years documents coming from proper custody as per Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is settled law that the documentary evidence takes precedence over the verbal assertions. In the circumstances, it can safely be concluded that Mst. Shahnaz Begum is daughter of Fateh Muhammad but the petitioners-defendants are disputing her parentage only to deprive her from her lawful share from the estate left by her father Fateh Muhammad deceased.
17. There are concurrent findings of law and fact against the petitioners-defendants which are immune from interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction unless there is some gross illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence floating on their surface which could not be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. In the circumstances, no interference is called for.
18. In view of what has been discussed above, this civil revision is bereft of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.