1. MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J. --- Briefly stated facts of the case in the plaint are that predecessor-in-interest of the parties namely Ali Bakhsh was owner of the property measuring 37K-16M comprising in Khewit No. 140, Khatuni No. 313, Sq.No.67, situated at Chak No. 233/RB Hari Singh Wala, Faisalabad. The said Ali Bakhsh died leaving behind five daughters namely Bakhan Bibi, Gaili Bibi, Fatima Bibi, Mandhan Bibi, Dani Bibi and one son Mehr Din but the inheritance mutation No. 339/1, dated 19.12.1952 of the deceased was attested only in favour of Mehr Din, Bakhan Bibi and Mandhan Bibi depriving the remaining three daughters as such the said mutation having no effect on the rights of the petitioners are liable to be set aside. Similarly, validity of gift mutation No. 354 dated 24.06.1968 and mutation No. 142 dated 13.12.1962 allegedly executed by Mst.
2. Bakhan Bibi and Mst. Mandhan Bibi respectively in favour of Mehr Din (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) was also questioned being based upon connivance.
2. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the contesting parties, learned Trial Court framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and vide impugned judgment dated 13.11.2009 dismissed the suit of the petitioners. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, who vide impugned judgment Learned counsel for the petitioners and decree dated 26.05.2010 dismissed the same. Being dissatisfied the petitioners have filed civil revision.
3. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned judgments and decrees are based on surmises and conjectures and result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence; that the petitioners through cogent and reliable evidence proved that Ali Bakhsh deceased had five daughters and one sister but the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents illegally and unlawfully got attested inheritance mutation in his favour as well as in favour of the two daughters depriving the remaining three from their lawful right; that subsequent gift deed and gift mutation by Mst. Bakhan Bibi and Mandhan Bibi in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents are also result of fraud and connivance; that the respondents are the beneficiaries of the impugned mutations as such under the law they were bound to prove their sanctity and that both the Courts below non-suited the petitioners on assumptions and presumptions; that evidence in this case has not been properly appreciated and the conclusions drawn therefrom are liable to be set aside.
5. Conversely learnedcounsel forthe respondents submits that the impugned judgments and decrees are well-reasoned that initial burden to prove that Mst. Gaili Bibi, Mst. Fatima Bibi and Mst.
4. Dani Bibi are the real daughters of deceased Ali Bakhsh was upon the petitioners but they failed to discharge this onus: that Mst. Bakhan Bibi gifted her share to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents with her free consent: that she remained alive for 30 years after this gift and never challenged its validity during this long span of time as such her legal heirs have no locus standi to dispute the same; that mutation No. 142 dated 13.12.1962 of Mst. Mundan Bibi was not a gift rather an inheritance mutation according to which her share was transferred to Mehr Din and. Mst. Bakhan Bibi; that the petitioners have failed to prove any fraud or mis-representation as such both the Courts below were fully justified in dismissing their suit which need no interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
5. 6.I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. 7.By way of declaratory suit the petitioners questioned the legality and validity of three inheritance/gift mutations bearing No. 1/339, dated 19.12.1952. No. 354 dated 24.06.1968 and No. 142 dated 13.12.1962. I will discuss them one by one. So'far as inheritance mutation No. 1/339 dated 19.12.1952 is concerned, it was the stance of the petitioners that in the said mutations three daughters of the deceased Ali Bakhash, namely Mst. Gaili Bibi, Fatima Bibi and Dani Bibi were deprived from their lawful shares, whereas, stance of the respondents was that the said ladies were not the daughters of deceased Allah Bakhsh. It is settled law that onus to prove a particular fact is on the party who alleges the same, therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that the said ladies are legitimate daughters of deceased Ali Bakhsh but the record shows that they failed to establish this fact through cogent and reliable evidence. Neither they produced birth certificates of the said ladies nor even the pedigree-table. The only documentary evidence which the petitioners rendered in this regard is the death certificates of these ladies but in the death certificates of Mst. Dani Ex.P6 name of her husband is mentioned. No doubt in the death certificate of Mst. Gaili name of her father is mentioned as All Bakhsh but this document is not sufficient to admit her as daughter of the deceased in the absence of any other documentary evidence such as pedigree-table etc. Even if for the sake of arguments said lady is considered to be daughter of the deceased All Bakhash even then the petitioners have no cause of action as none of them is the legal heir of said Mst. Gaili Bibi. All the three ladies in their lifetime neither claimed themselves to be the daughters of deceased Ali Bakhash nor challenged veracity of the inheritance mutation which was attested as back as in the year 1952. Moreover, inheritance mutation contains pedigree-table of deceased All Bakhsh according to which Mehr Din, Mst. Bakhan and Mst. Mundhan Bibi are his legal heirs and the petitioners have failed to controvert the same through any solid and confidence inspiring evidence, therefore, both the Courts below were fully justified in holding that the petitioners have failed to establish that Mst. Gaili Bibi, Mst. Fatima Bibi and Mst. Dani Bibi are also the legal heirs of deceased and no exception can be drawn therefrom.
7. 8.Now coming to mutation No. 142 dated 13.12.1962 available on record as Ex.P3 which according to the petitioners is a gift mutation, by Mst. Mundhan Bibi, a perusal of it would reveal that it is not a gift rather an inheritance mutation by way of which her property was transferred in the name of Mehr Din (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) and Mst. Bakhan Bibi (predecessor-in- interest of petitioner No. 1). This is manifestation of the fact that the petitioners themselves were unaware of the factual position and they filed the suit in a cursory manner. The suit was filed by petitioner No. 1, whose mother not only obtained share from the inheritance mutation of All Bakhsh but also from the estate of her sister Mst. Mundhan Bibi, therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to question the validity of these mutations when his mother is also the beneficiary of these mutations.
8. Furthermore, the petitioners have failed to establish that there remains any other legal heir of deceased Mundhan Bibi, therefore, in no manner this inheritance mutation could be termed as illegal or void. Both the Courts rightly did not intervene with the same and no occasion arises for this Court to intervene with the same in its revisional jurisdiction.
9. 9.Now coming to mutation No. 354 dated 24.06.1968 whereby Mst. Bakhan Bibi (mother of petitioner No. 1) gifted her property in favour of Mehr Din (predecessor-in-interest of respondents). it was the stance of the petitioners in their evidence that at the time of impugned gift the said lady was old and weak but no such plea was taken by them in their plaint. It is settled law that no party could be allowed to adduce evidence beyond the pleadings, therefore, this stance of the petitioners has rightly been discarded by the leaned Courts below. Furthermore, the donor Mst. Bakhan Bibi remained alive almost thirty years after this gift and she never challenged its veracity during her life time, therefore, her legal heirs have no locus standi to challenge the same after such a long period of 36 years of the attestation of the gift mutation. Reliance is placed on case reported as Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surayya Begum (2002 SCM R 1330) wherein it has been held as under:--- "11. <i>Atta Muhammad was deprived of right to inherit the property as a consequence of mutation in dispute but he did not challenge the same during his lifetime. The petitioners claimed the property through Atta Muhammad as his heirs who filed the suit as late in 1979 about nine years after the sanction of mutation which had already been given effect to in the record-of-rights. The petitioners, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge the mutation independently, for Atta Muhammad through whom they claimed inheritance himself had not challenged the same during his lifetime." </i> 10.Similarly, in case reported as Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others (2013 SCM R 299) the Honble apex Court has laid down as under:-- <i>"Having heard petitioners' counsel at some length, we find that admittedly the impugned mutation of inheritance bearing No. 571 dated 9-7-1927 was never challenged by Mst. Karam Jan; that she remained alive till 1975 and no reason whatsoever is reflected either in the plaint or in the evidence led indicate as to why she did not challenge the said mutation. It has never been the case of the petitioners that either they or their predecessor-in-interest were unaware of the said mutation. In the afore-referred circumstances the judgment of the learned High Court is unexceptionable. So far as the precedent case-law to which reference has been made by petitioner's learned counsel is concerned. the same is distinguishable as in none of the judgments the question of locus standi was a moot point." </i> 11.For what has been discussed above, both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence in its true perspective were fully justified in arriving at the conclusions that the petitioners have failed to establish their case. Learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence in the impugned judgments and decrees, in the absence thereof concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with . by this Court in its revisional Jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on cases reported as Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v.
10. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 293) and Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Najjatay Bibi and 13 others (2000 SCM R 346). Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is <u>dismissed. </u> No order as to costs.