CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J. --- Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the validity of judgment & decree dated 25.09.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kabirwala whereby suit for declaration with permanent injunction filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 was decreed and judgment & decree dated 24.01.201 1 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kabirwala dismissing the appeal of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No 1 & 2 plaintif fs filed suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 11/defendants alleging therein that one Qasim was predecessor- in-interest of the parties to the lis and while incorporating his inheritance mutation No. 42, dated 27.08.1963 the names of respondents No. 1 & 2/plaintif fs were not mentioned in the array of legal heirs. The petitioners and others filed contesting written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded. The learned Trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 25.09.2010 decreed the suit of respondents No. 1 & 2. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kabirwala vide judgment & decree dated 24.01.201 1. Hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not daughters of Qasim, as such, their names were not incorporated in the revenue record while incorporating the inheritance mutation of deceased Qasim but the learned Courts below has not considered this aspect and in hasty manner passed the impugned judgments & decrees, as such, liable to be set aside.
4. Heard..
5. Defendants No. 8 & 9 filed written statement and admitted that respondents No. 1 & 2 are daughters of Qasim but their names were not incorporated in the inheritance mutation. Kaneez Mai herself appeared as PW-1 and she stated that her father's name was Qasim who had died in 1962; that party to lis are brothers and sisters and her mother's name was Noor Bibi; that her brother deprived the sisters (plaintif fs) from the inherited share in the property of the deceased father by practicing fraud with them. In cross-examination, she deposed as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} Muhammad Nawaz appeared as PW-2 and he stated that fraud has been committed with respondent No.1. Zahoor appeared as PW-3 who supported the version of the respondents. Conversely , Muhammad Nawaz appeared as DW-1 and he stated that inheritance mutation was rightly passed; that Kaneez Mai and Ameeran Mai are not their sisters. In cross-examination, he deposed as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
6. From the perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence it reveals that respondents No. 1 & 2 categorically stated that fraud has been committed with them and their names were not incorpor ated in the revenue record while incorporating the inheritance mutation of the estate of the deceased father Qasim but the petitioners have not produced any evidence which proves that respondents No. 1 & 2 are not daughters of Qasim. As it was an inheritance mutation which is under challenge and beside the marginal witness, the official witness of transaction i.e. Lambardar , Patwari and Tehsildar concerned are the most relevant entities of the inheritance mutation No. 42, dated 27.08.1963 but neither Lambardar concerned nor Patwari who scribed the alleged inheritance mutation nor Tehsildar who sanctioned the mutation were produced in evidence by the petitioners/defendants to prove the validity of alleged inheritance mutation and non-producing the said material witne ss amount to withholding of the best evidence and it would be legally presumed that had the witness produced in evidence they would have deposed against the petitioners as held in the cases reported as Sughran Bibi v. Mst. Aziz Begum & 4 others (1996 SCMR 137), Muhammad Uris v. Government of Sind h through Secretary Revenue Department, Board of Revenue,' Hyderabad & 2 others (1998 CLC 1359 ), Mst. Mohsina Saeed Tauni v. Muhammad Asif & others (PLD 2005 Karachi 585), Mian Muhammad Amin & another v. Mst. and Land Acquisition Collector & another v. Mst. Begum through LR,s. (2011 CLC 1342 ). Further it is a common vice prevailing in our society that female legal heirs of the deceased are normally in their_ due share in the estate/legacy of their deceased parents by male members of the said family through practicing nefarious machinations, such as-in the name of family honour , marriage expenses, customs, relations, social and moral coercion, etc. as well as under some regional traditions of marriage of a woman with religious book with vicious intent to retain her share in the estate within the family .
Unfortunately here in this case a traditional device, of excluding the name of plaint iff from inheritance mutation has been applied just to deprive the female lawful inheritor from the accrued share in the estate of their deceased father whereas the petitioners failed to prove that the respondents are not daughters of the deceased Qasim. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Boota v. Mst. Rashidan Bibi & others (2008 SCMR 343).The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Ghulam Ali & 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1 ) held as under:-- "The last Khutaba of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) which contains several injunc tions---most of them of juridical import--has already been referred generally , in another connection. In the present context it needs somewhat detailed study as a part of it exclusively deals with the women, their rights and- duties and status. One injunction clearly prescribed that men have rights qua women and they have similar rights qua men. The translation in Vernacular and commentary on this subject by Muhammad Mian Siddiqui, Research Fellow Islamic Research Institute of International Islamic University , Islamabad, in a recently published Book Khutabat-e-Rasoor in relevant parts, is as follows:--- {{URDU TEXT}} After leaving out some injunction is regarding women which are not relevant here it is further stated as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}} This was reiteration of Quranic injunction S. 4 V . 7 which when translated reads as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}} Another injunction from the Khutaba with regard to the protection of the rights of women particularly regarding inheritance would be rightly understood if the background in this behalf is kept in view. The author , of the 'Khutabat- e-Rasool' at Page 176 of the Book stated the background as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}} It is, inter alia , in this connection that another part of the Khutaba regarding the women, needs to be quoted here:-- {{URDU TEXT}} No doubt in our urban society woman is not only asserting her rights but also is believed in some quarters as able to protect herself and her rights. In other social sectors she still is highly depen dent upon the good-will of men around her; and, in the rural areas due to, the reasons, which would be presently noted, the conditions under which she is living in this 20th Century , can in the present context, be compared with those prevailing before the advent of Islam and to which reference has already been made. It is not out of place here to mention that the position of woman and her disabilities regarding protection of her own rights was recognized consistently , without reference to Islamic injunctions, purely as interpretation of the provisions of Contract Act (Section 16 and others), even by the Privy Council when dealing with the contracts by and acts of Parda Nasheen ladies. This was also on account of general principles that strict rules were laid down by it (the Privy Council) for the protection of their rights which if infringed, the contracts were rendered void. The Rules of English Court of Chancery for protection of the rights of 'the weak' 'the ignorant' and 'the infirm', and those of the expectant heirs' under the English Law are analoguous and to be further studied in this behalf. The view of Sir W. Rattingan to the contrary mentioned in Mullah's Work (1985 Edition Pakistan) expressed in an unreported old Calcutta case; with respect, is not correct. Be that as it may, in the present day dispensation in Pakistan, the interpretation of laws under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence with particular reference to status of women and inheritance, leads us to a dif ferent conclusion."
It is further observed in the supra dictum of the Hon'ble apex Courts of the country that the Courts are saddled with extra-ordinary obligation to protect and safeguard the accrued shares of inheritance in favour of the women.
Relevant portion of the supra judgment is reproduced as under:-- "Scope of, rights of inheritance of females is so wide and their thrust so strong that it is the duty of the Courts to protect and enforce them, even in the legislative action of this purpose of protec tion in accordance with Islamic Jurisprudence is yet to take its own time."
Petitioners have failed to bring on record any evidence which proves any illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments & decrees.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illega lity or material irregularity , mis- reading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments & decrees passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of fact are against the petitioners which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdictio n in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Feroze & others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304 ), Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad (2007 SCMR 926), Asmatullah v. Amanat Ullah through LRs (PLD 2008 SC 155 ) and Mst. Zaitoon Begum v . Nazar Hussain & another (2014 SCMR 1469 ).
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this Civil Revision is also hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits with no order as to costs.
Revision dismissed