I need not to narrate the factual background of the case as the same has been detailed in judgments of both the learned Courts below; suffice it to say that a suit for declaration alongwith separate possession through partition and permanent injunction, instituted by respondent No.1 and two others, was preliminary decreed and appeal whereof preferred by petitioner 's father was dismissed by the learned first appe llate Court holding that affidavit Exh.P .2, submitted by Malik Nazar Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of both the parties confirmed his ownership regarding the disputed house which was submitted by him to the authority on 14.03.1987 for obtaining permission to raise construction for residential purposes, which was allowed and he constructed a house, therefore, all the legal heirs were declared entitled to get their legal shares.
It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner 's father Malik Muhammad Ikram breathed his last on 28.02.2018 reflecting from Death Certificate (attached with this petition as Annexure 'M') whereas the judgment was announced by the learned first appellate Court on 02.05.2019 and the fact of death of petitioner 's father was not conveyed to the same Court so as to implead the present petitioner . However , it is explained by the petitioner vide ground (e) of revision petition that this fact was brought into knowledge of her coun sel but in vain. Be that as it may, the deceased father is survived by the present petitioner; hence, the right to file this revision petition devolved upon her.
2. It is noticed that in the presence of undisputed document Exh.P-2, affidavit of predecessor of the parties, who claimed himself as owner of the plot, ownership claimed by father of the petitioner on the basis of document (PT-1)
(Exh.P-4) of Excise & Taxation Departmen t was rightly disregarded because the said document is always prepared to recover taxes from occupants and never to be taken as evidence of ownership of premises/property , therefore, the learned Courts below had not committed any material illegality or irregularity holding that the subject property was owned and possessed by deceased Malik Nazar Muhammad and declared all the legal heirs of said deceased as owners and in consequence whereof the property-in-dispute was directed to be devolved upon them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same argument and emphasized that due weight had not been given to the Excise & Taxation Department' s document showing her father 's ownership, which is not acceptable in the presence of Exh.P .2 affidavit submitted by Malik Nazar Muhammad way back in the year 1987 much before the construction of document of Excise & Taxation Department particularly on account of lack of any evidence on record regarding acquiring ownership of the property by the petitioner after the death of original owner Malik Nazar Muhammad besides it does not create any right of ownership inasmuch as it was construed by the Excise & Taxation Department for the purpose of recovering taxes from the occupant.
4. I have also examined the provisions of Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules, 1958, framed by virtue of Section 23 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, and it is noticed that the stamp embossed upon Exh.P-4, Form P.T.1, prescribed under Rule 5(a), 6(1) and 11(9) of the Rules, 1958, , itself depicts as under:- "P.T.1 Copy For Taxation Purpose Only.
Not For Registration."
Meaning thereby , Rules itself excludes its validity to claim any ownership on basis of document constructed thereunder .
5. In view of the above, it is clear that P.T.1 does not create any title in favour of any person on the basis of entries therein but only could be a valid evidence of proof of holding of possession. I am fortified from the case-law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as Muzaf far Khan v. Sanchi Khan and another (2007 SCMR 181) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Even this document does not tend to confer any right or title in favour of respondent No.1, except the right to possession, therefore, merely on the basis of extracts containing entries in his favour in PT-I maintained by Excise and Taxation Officer M. Division Karachi could not be held to be the owner of the property. At best the plaintiff/respondent No.1 would be entitled to a decree for protection of possession on the basis of the evidence adduced by him and not controverted by other side. In the absence of any concrete evidence on the question of mesne profits we are in a manner of doubt whether such decree could be passed in his favour as against petitioner and respondent Rehmat Hussain."
The case-law reported in Irfan and 5 others v. Surriya Jabeen and 4 others (2012 CLC 605) and Sh. Muhammad Rafique v . Sh. Muhammad Jameel (2015 MLD 642 ) is referred with advantage.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below which are in consonance with the facts and law; hence this petition has no merits and dismissed-in- limine .