' HAIDER ALI KHAN, J.--- Through the instant civil revision petition, the petitioners have called in question the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2004 of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Malakand at Dargai, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 13.01.2004 of the learned Civil Judge/ Illaqa Qazi, Dargai, whereby suit of the Respondent No,1 had been decreed, was maintained.
2. Precise and relevant facts of the case are that the. Respondent No, 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against one Mst. Khaista Bibi, the present petitioners and rest of the respondents/defendants to the effect that the suit land falling in Khasra Nos. 78, 85 Khata No,1 measuring 201-K 19-M situated at village Badraga, Tehsil Dargai was inherited by his father through Mutation No,. 97 attested on 20.5.1946 which later on came into the ownership of the Respondent No,1/plaintiff as ancestral property by the dint of Tamleek Nama dated 05.7.1969 and Mutation No, 125 dated 08.4.1974 which was executed on the basis of said Tamleek Nama. He further averred in his plaint that the Dower Mutation No, 103 allegedly executed by Fazl-ur Rehman (grandfather of the Respondent No, l/plaintift) in favour of Defendant No,1 Mst. Khaista Bibi, being fake, fictitious and illegal, is ineffective upon his rights. His further stance in the plaint was that the Defendant No,1, Mst. Khaista Bibi, illegally claimed the suit land as her ownership and was bent upon to alienate the same in favour of the petitioners/defendants vide Mutation No,455 dated 20.3.1998 which was challenged by the Respondent No, 1/plaintiff in appeal and revision but the same stood dismissed and the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 17.4.1999 directed him to approach the Civil Court.
' The Defendant No,1 Mst. Khaista Bibi and the present petitioners, who were the contesting defendants,, appeared before the Court and contested the suit 'by submitting their joint written statement whereby they denied the claim of the Respondent No,1/plaintiff .Raising various legal as well as factual objections. In essence, Mst. 1Khaista Bibi (Defendant No,1) died issueless and the petitioners/ defendants claim to be her L. Rs, as she was sister of their father. They mainly averred in their written statement that the process of Mutation No, 103 executed by FazlurRehman in favour of his wife Mst. Khaista . Bibi (Defendant No,1) had been finalized on 19.3.1936 whereas the Respondent No,1/plaintiff has challenged the same after lapse of 54 years, hence, the suit is barred by time. They further averred that Mutation No, 455 dated 20.3.1998 executed by defendant Mst.
Khaista Bibi has been challenged by the Respondent No,1/plaintiff in the Court of Political Agent, Malakand and later on before the Additional Commissioner through revision petition, but the same have been dismissed, therefore, the matter has finally been decided.
' Rest of the defendants acceded to the claim of the Respondent No,1/plaintiff by filing their cognovits.
3. The trial Court framed thirteen (13) issues from the divergent pleadings of the parties and recorded pro and contra evidence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of Respondent No, 1/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.2004 which was upheld by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/defendants have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court through the instant revision petition.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. In light of arguments, perusal of the record would reveal that the Respondent No, 1/plaintiff has produced and exhibited Inheritance Mutation No, 97 attested on 20.5.1946 (Ex.PW-2/1) whereby the suit land was transferred by Fazl-ur-Rehman to Syed Abdul Khaliq (father of the Respondent No, 1/plaintiff). The Respondent No, 1/plaintiff also exhibited Tamleek Nama dated 05.7.1969 as Ex.PW- 4/1 whereby his father Syed Abdul Khaliq transferred his property to his sons and daughters and on the basis thereof Mutation No, 125 dated 08.4.1974 was registered in favour of the Respondent No, 1/plaintiff. Record also shows that Tamleek Nama Ex.PW-4/1 has remained controversial before different fora of Land Commission but was finally decided by this Court in favour of :Syed Abdul Khaliq, father of the Respondent No,1/plaintiff and respondents Nos. 2 to 7/defendants and Tamleek Nama executed by Syed Abdul Khaliq in favour of, his children was considered as valid. This fact gives full support to the contention of the Respondent No,1/plaintiff and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the same. Record further shows that Mst. Khaista Bibi had instituted suits for recovery of produce and dispossession against the tenants on the disputed land but later on she withdrew the same and admitted the disputed Khasras as ownership of the Respondent No, 1/plaintiff. The documents relating to the above proceedings initiated by Mst. Khaista Bibi have been brought on the record and duly exhibited to which presumption of truth is attached being public documents especially in absence of A any cogent evidence to the contrary. The documents referred to above give support to the contention of Respondent No,1/plaintiff and the same have not been declared as illegal by any Court besides, the petitioners have badly failed to rebut their authenticity through convincing evidence.
6. It is also the stance of the petitioners that Fazl-ur-Rehman had mutated the disputed land in favour of his wife Mst. Khaista Bibi vide Mutation No, 103 dated 19.3.1936 who further mutated the same to them vide Mutation No, 455 dated 20.3.1998. A bare perusal of the mentioned deed shows that the very status of the former deed i,e, Mutation No, 103 is doubtful because the petitioners have failed to produce any deed in this regard. Moreso, this fact is also noticeable that Inheritance Mutation of Fazl-urRehman bearing No, 97 in favour of his son Syed Abdul Khaliq was effected in 1934 but Mutation No, 103 in favour of Mst. Khaista Bibi was statedly effected in 1936 i,e, two years after the death of the executor and that too in respect of dower. There is no evidence on the record which could lend support to the above contention of the petitioners because the petitioner No,1 has recorded only his statement as DW-1 and has not bothered to produce other witnesses that could support their cause. The petitioners have also failed to prove that either the land in dispute was in possession of Mst. Khaista Bibi or she was otherwise ever benefitted from the same land as owner thereof. In this regard the Respondent No, 1/plaintiff has produced Amir Khan as PW-5 who was tenant on the disputed land. He has categorically stated that he as well as other tenants have been paying the mortgage amount/produce to Respondent No,1/plaintiff and his father. In the circumstances, that the petitioners/ 'defendants have failed to bring on the record the deed allegedly executed in favour of Mst. Khaista Bibi or to produce any other convincing evidence in this regard, the trial Court has no other option but to repel their stance for want of proof.
7. Learned, counsel for the petitioners failed to show either any evidence to have been misinterpreted by both the Courts below, or any evidence in favour of the petitioners without proper appraisal. Similarly, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are based on sounds reasons wherein no illegality or irregularity could be pointed out during the arguments, hence, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand, being devoid of any force, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.