' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this single judgment I intend to decide Civil Revision No, 286 of 1993 as well as Civil Revision No, 287 of 1993 and Civil Revision No, 1963 of 2000 as all these three matters are interconnected.
2. Through the civil revision in hand the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10-12-1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1991 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sargodha whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed.
3. In this case mutation of inheritance of Mst. Noor Bhari widow of Sher Muhammad, bearing No, 256 attested on 7-5-1976, has been challenged by Razia Khatoon and Safia Khatoon. According to the claim of the plaintiffs their mother Mst. Allah Jewai, who was daughter of Noor Bhari, was excluded from inheritance. The inheritance mutation of Ameer Muhammad son of Noor Bhari, attested on 7-3- 1978, was also challenged.
4. In Civil Revision No, 287 of 1996 petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10- 124992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 31-34991 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sargodha whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed. In this case the plaintiffs Atta Muhammad son of Sher Muhammad as well as Mst. Razia Khatoon and Mst. Safia Khatoon daughters of Mst. Allah Jewai daughter of Sher Muhammad and legal heirs of Mst. Fateh Khatoon daughter of Sher Muhammad have challenged the inheritance mutation of Ameer Muhammad son of Sher Muhammad bearing No, 257 dated 7-5-1976 on the ground that at the time of death of Ameer Muhammad, his mother Mst. Noor Bhari was alive and therefore, she was to inherit 1/6th share from his legacy and in distribution of that 1/6th after the death of Mst. Noor Bhari, her legal heirs were entitled to inherit in accordance with law and mutation No,297 attested on 19- 10-1982 has also been challenged.
5. In Civil Revision No, 1963 of 2000, petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 12- 4-2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khushab whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 3-2-1994 passed by learned Civil Judge, Khushab whereby suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed. In this case Atta Muhammad, Mst. Razia Khatoon and Mst. Safia Khatoon have challenged the mutation of inheritance of Ameer Muhammad son of Sher Muhammad bearing No, 12526 attested on 12-8-1975 stating that at the time of death of Ameer Muhammad, Mst. Noor Bhari the predecessor of the plaintiffs and real mother of the deceased was alive and therefore, she, was to inherit 1/6th share.
They have also challenged mutation of gift bearing No, 422 dated 13-8-1986 by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 in favour of defendant No, 2.
6. Brief and relevant facts for the decision of all the above mentioned three revisions are that at the time of attestation of inheritance mutation of Mst. Noor Bhari, the property left by Mst. Noor Bhari was given to her two sons Ameer Muhammad and Atta Muhammad and a daughter Mst. Fateh Khatoon whereas through mutation of inheritance of Ameer Muhammad son of Mst. Noor Bhari, Mutation No, 257 attested on 7-5-1976 was sanctioned in favour of his daughters and sons excluding Mst. Noor Bhari mother of said Ameer Muhammad. Case of the plaintiffs in all the three suits that Mst. Allah Jewai was also one of the daughters of Mst. Noor Bhari, she has been wrongly excluded from the inheritance and Mst. Safia Khatoon and Mst. Razia Khatoon are daughters of Mst.
Allah Jewai, therefore, they are to inherit Mst. Noor Bhari and second point of issue between the parties is that whether Ameer Muhammad died earlier or Mst. Noor Bhari. According to the case of the plaintiffs Mst. Noor Bhari died on 14-7-1975 whereas Ameer Muhammad died on 8-9-1974, therefore, Mst. Noor Bhari was to inherit Ameer Muhammad also and then in the distribution of estate of Mst. Noor Bhari the share of the plaintiffs is increased after receiving share from her son Ameer Muhammad.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the suit has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation. States that in the suit subject matter of the Civil Revision No, 286 of 1993, the Attorney of the plaintiffs appeared and none of the plaintiffs opted to appear before the court, where death certificates of Ameer Muhammad and Mst. Noor Bhari have not been proved. Learned counsel argued that in Para 9 of the judgment passed by the learned trial court the documents which were subject matter of Civil Revision No, 287 of 1993 were referred which were not permissible under the law. States that in accordance with Article 64 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, plaintiffs failed to prove their case. Learned counsel has further argued that in accordance with death certificate of Ameer Muhammad (Exh.P5), death of Ameer Muhammad was recorded on 11-9-1974 and his date of death is mentioned as 8-9-1974 and it was recorded at Sr.No,8 of the register. Further argues that death certificate of Mst. Noor Bhari has been produced as Exh.P.4, which shows that death entry was recorded at Sr.No,4 of the register as death was reported on 21-7-1975 and date of death was mentioned as 14-7-1975, learned counsel attacks the validity of death certificates on the ground of their serial number.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has mainly relied upon the statement of DW-1 the Bank Manager recorded in case which is subject matter of Civil Revision No, 287 of 1993 to show that the cheque was issued by Ameer Muhammad which is dated 10-2-1975 and its encashment shows that he was alive in February, 1975. Prays for acceptance of all the three revision petitions and setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below and no misreading and non-reading has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. States that the documentary evidence produced by the defendants completely connects the case pleaded by the plaintiffs in all the three suits and there is absolutely no doubt to the fact that Mst. Allah Jewai was daughter of Mst. Noor Bhari and sister of Ameer Muhammad and Atta Muhammad and further that Mst. Razia Khatoon and Mst. Safia Khatoon are daughters of Mst. Allah Jewai and further that Mst. Noor Bhari died on 14-7-1975 whereas Ameer Muhammad died on 8-9-1974, therefore, states that judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are in accordance with law. Prays for dismissal of all the civil revisions.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.
11. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that in a suit which is subject matter of Civil Revision No, 287 of 1993 Atta Muhammad appeared as PW-2 and admitted that Mst. Allah Jewai was his real sister and Mst. Safia Khatoon and Mst. Razia Khatoon are daughters of Mst. Allah Jewai, by making this statement his own share of inheritance which he received from his mother Mst. Noor Bhari will decrease. This statement is very important that a person is making a statement which decreases his share of inheritance. While going through the findings I have noted that the courts below have rightly interpreted the documentary evidence available on the file. The record of judicial proceedings has rightly been considered which also confirms the death of Ameer Muhammad before Mst. Allah Jewai. I have noticed that the witnesses of the petitioners- defendants have showed their ignorance at the time of cross-examination that Mst. Razia and Mst.
Safia are daughters of Mst. Allah Jewai and they have also showed their ignorance about the fact that who was mother of Mst. Razia and Safia. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that when these are connected matters and both the suits were being proceeded before one court though separately but at the time of decision the court was quite competent to take judicial notice of the documents available on the file which were not though formally exhibited but were of copies from the judicial record. I have gone through the statement got recorded by the Manager of the Bank which has been shattered in the cross-examination. This statement is absolutely not helpful to show that Ameer Muhammad was alive at the time of encashment of the cheque, as it does not show that the maker of the cheque was alive at that time and admittedly the Bank Manager does not know that who appeared at the time of encashment of the cheque, therefore, this statement has no value in favour of the defendants-petitioners.
12. In the matters of "Pardah Nasheen Ladies" as well as of inheritance, the court is ever liberal in exercise of discretion as well as jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff "Pardah Nasheen ladies" in matter of inheritance. In this case defendants were required to prove the clear cut ouster of the plaintiffs from the property in dispute. As at the time of death of propositus all his legal heirs become the joint owners in the property left by the propositus. In this case also at the time of death of Noor Bhari as well as Ameer Muhammad all their legal heirs became the joint owner of the suit property. The defendants were required to prove their complete ouster from the suit property, they have not proved the same, therefore, suit was rightly entertained and decided to have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
13. As there are concurrence findings of fact recorded by the two courts below, which are based upon the evidence available on the file which has been duly considered and discussed by both the courts below which led to the courts to the conclusion that Mst. Noor Bhari was having a daughter who was deprived from the inheritance of Mst: Noor Bhari at the time of attestation of mutation of inheritance and Mst. Safia Khatoon and Mst. Razia Khatoon are daughters of Mst. Allah Jewai and further that Mst. Noor Bhari died after the death of Ameer Muhammad therefore, she was entitled to inherit Ameer Muhammad and her legal heirs were to inherit in accordance with law at the time of death of Mst. Noor Bhari.
14. In view of the above, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. Has been made out. Resultantly, all the above stated three revision petitions stand dismissed with costs g throughout.