MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, J.--- This revision petition is directed against concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below , whereby petitioners suit for declaration was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 31.03.2007 and appeal whereof preferred by the petitioners met with the same fate by the learned Additional District Judge, Liaquatpur vide judgment & decree dated 17.02.2010.
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint by the petitioners-plaintif fs are that the land-in-dispute mutated through impugned mutation No.680/640 dated 12,06.1942 was got entered by committing fraud and concealing the true legal heirs of the deceased, the original owner namely Muhammad Sultan, as the land was shown to have been devolved upon sole son despite the fact that four other daughters also surviv ed at that time and the plaintif fs' grandmother , one of the legal heir of dece ased Muhammad Sultan, was entitled to get the inheritance but she has been fraudulently deprived from her legitimate right of heritage. The respondents-defendants contested the suit and besides raising Preliminary Objections regarding limitation etc., it was alleged that the grandmother being predeceased daughter was not entitled to get her share from the inheritance according to Shariah and Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 had no retrospective effect, thus the suit was prayed to be dismissed. From divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as ten issues including relief. After recording evidence of the parties, suit was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 31.03.2007 by the learned trial Court mainly on the basis of findings returned on issue No.9-A and declared that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintif fs died prior to Muhammad Sultan, their grandfather therefore, she was not entitled to get her share. From dissatisfaction of the verdict granted by the learned trial Court, the petitioner s preferred appeal, which was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2010.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has focused his arguments mainly on issue No.9-A regarding death of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-plaintif fs as to whether she died before death of sole owner of the property and to establish this fact that the learned Courts below have committed material illegality and irregularity while holding that predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners-plaintif fs had died prior to Muhammad Sultan, the sole owner of the property , it is contended that onus of this issue was on the respondents, who failed to substantiate it by producing any cogent evidence on record whereas the certificate produced by the respondents regarding death of Mst. Bakhtawar , the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, could not be relied upon as with regard to same document they applied through Naqi Form to the competent authority for issuance of said certificate, which was refused by making a report that the particulars of Mst. Bakhtawar could not be read-out properly from the register due to its poor condition and for this reason, copy could not be issued, therefore, the certificate issued by the respondents was forged and fictitious and could not be relied upon by the learned Courts below . The script of oral evidence has also been referred to corroborate his contention that the respondents have failed to prove the issue; hence, the judgments impugned are unsustainable in the eye of law .
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that both the Courts below have neither committed any illegality nor misread or misconstrued the evidence by recording concurrent findings of facts, therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the sole document submitted by the respondents in evidence was a certified copy of a public document and sanctity of said document had not been challenged at the time of its exhibition in evidence, therefore, at this stage, the petitioners have no right to make any objection about validity of said document. Since the document has been appreciated by both the learned Courts below which established that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-plaintif fs Mst. Bakhtawar had died in the year 1936, therefore, the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity to leave any room for interference by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined record of the case.
6. The plaint does not disclose any date or year of death of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintif fs, which was to be pointed-out or alleged by the plaintif fs to claim her right that. Mst. Bakhtawar was alive at the time of death of her father Muhammad Sultan. It is nowhere averred in the plaint that as to when Mst. Bakhtawar joined the majority , which fact ought to have been alleged by the plaintif fs in their plaint and then elaborate this fact in their evidence.
The onus qua this issue was on the defendant' s respondents who produced the death certificate of Mst. Bakhtawar , reportedly died in the year 1936, and mutation was sanctioned in the year 1942 on the death of Muhammad Sultan.
The document although had been exhibi ted in statement of the learned counsel but no objection at its exhibition was raised by the plaintif fs, therefore, the admitted documents could not be ignored at the time of decision of matter . In this view of the matter , the learned trial Court rightly observed on the basis of this document that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners-plaintif fs Mst. Bakhtawar had died prior to demise of Muhammad Sultan, the sole owner of the property whose legacy devolved upon his legal heirs in the year 1942 through impugned mutation. It is held by the learned Courts below that evidence led by the respondent' s defendants was sufficient to prove that Mst. Bakhtawar was predeceased daughter of Muhammad Sultan and according to Shariah, the predeceased daughter or son is not entitled to get the share from inheritan ce of father . I do not find any substance in the argument of petitioners' learned counsel, as the learned lower Courts have not committed any illegality or irregularity while rendering the judgments impugned, which are in consonance with the evidence available on record.
7. For what has been stated above, this revision petition being merits less is dismissed. No order as to costs.