MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.-- The instant Revision Petition is directed by the Petitioners/defendants against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned two Courts below vide their judgments and decrees dated 13- 5-2010 and 24-6-2009 respectively , whereby the suit of Plaintif fs/ Respondents was decreed against the petitioners/ defendants.
2. Short facts of the case giving rise to the instant Revision Petition are that Plaintif fs/Respondents Ibrahim Khan alias Barkat Ali Khan son of Rehman Ali and Mst. Pinin daughter of Rehman Ali resident of Sandi Tehsil Yasin District Ghizar instituted a suit against the Petitioners/Defendants for declaration and possession of their 1/3rd share of the suit land as the Plaintif fs/respondents are legal heirs of their maternal grandfather namely Misar Khan, who had died left behind Mst. Gul Bibi (deceased) mother of the plaintif fs / respondents and defendant No.12 and namely Babur Shah (deceased) father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and late Akbar Shah and during that period mother of the plaintif fs/ respondents Mst. Gul Bibi also died, thus the suit land remained in possession of the defendants Nos. 1 to 11 and they have partitioned the suit land between them and had denied the claim/1/3rd share of the plaintif fs/ respondents, hence, the Petitioners/ respondents had instituted Civil Suit before the learned trial Court for declaration and recovery of possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land as admissible to their late mother .
3. The suit was hotly contested by the petitioners/defendants who submitted their written statement by raising legal and factual objections which gave rise to the framing of as many as 2 issues and issue of relief. The learned trial Court after recording evidence pro and contra evidence and after hearing the parties in the light of material available on record decreed the suit of the Plaintif fs/ respondents against the present petitioners/ defendants.
Being dis-content with the Impugned judgment/decree dated 24.6.2 009 passed by the learned trial Court Petitioners/defendants preferred Civil first Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge Ghizar , which also met the same fate, hence the petitioners/defendants filed the instant Civil Revision before this Court.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court on 1-12-2016 after hearing arguments of learned counsel for Plaintif fs / respondents dismissed the Revision petition. Being dis-satisfied with the said order Petitioners/Defendants have challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same by setting aside the order dated 01.12.2016 passed in Civil Revision No.32/2010 and order dated 07-12-2015 passed by this Court and remanded the petition in hand to this Court to decide the Civil Revision afresh on its own merits in accordance with law.
5. The Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants argued that the learned Courts below have not followed the provision of customary law, hence, the judgments/decrees of both the learned Courts are not maintainable. He further submitted that the suit of plaintif fs/ respondents was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed being incompetent in the present shape but the learned Courts below have wrongly decreed the suit, hence, not maintainable and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that plaintif fs/respondents have failed to rebut the issue No.5 and the suit is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that prior to 1962 the customary law was in existence in the area to inherit any property but the learned trial Courts below failed to appreciate this fact, hence both judgments/decrees are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that suit of the plaintif fs/respondents is clearly time-barred and the learned courts below have wrongly decreed the suit. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants contended that the concurrent findings of the learned courts are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, the judgments/ decrees of the courts below are liable to be set aside in acceptance of the instant Civil Revision. The learned counsel relied on NLR 1994 CLJ 447.
6, On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintif fs/respondents have strongly defended the judgments/ decrees of the learned lower courts by asserting that the judgments/decrees passed by the learned Courts are result of correct appreciation of evidence and facts on record. He further submitted that Plaintif fs/respondents are legal heirs of their grandfather late Miser Khan. He further submitted that petitioners/ defendants have admitted in para No.3 of their written statement that the suit land was property of late Miser Khan. He further submitted that the suit property . was not distributed between the LRs of late Babur Shah and plaintif fs/respondents are co-sharer and their right in the suit property is undeniable. He further submitted that suit of the Plaintif fs/ respondents are co-sharer therefore, suit is within time. He further submitted that parties are LRs of Miser Khan and the suit land is the legacy of late Miser Khan, therefore, the learned courts below have rightly decreed the suit after correct appreciation of material available on file. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners/ respondents submitted that the instant revision petition is not maintainable, therefore, liable to be dismissed to meet the ends of justice.
The learned counsel relied on PLD 1995 Peshawar 135, 1999 CLC 1195 Lahore, PLD 2000 Supreme Court 792, 2011 CLC 1225 Karachi, 2011 CLC 1734 Quetta PLD 2006 Lah. 240, 1998 MLD 1857 Peshawar , PLD 1983 Supreme Court 273, 2011 CLC 921 Peshawar , PLD 2011 Peshawar 178, 2010 SCMR 5 and 2012 CLC 551 Peshawar .
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record available on file.
8. It is admitted position in the case that the suit land mentioned in the head note of the plaint is legacy of their maternal grandfather , late Miser Khan. It is also admitted by the petitioners/ defendants that the plaintif fs/respondents are Legal heirs of late Miser Khan. Plaintif fs/respondent being LRs of late Mst. Gul Bibi daughter of Miser Khan, were entitled to inherit their due share in the legacy of late Miser Khan, (grandfather of the plaintif fs/respondents) and they were deprived from their sharai shares. It is settled law that facts once admitted need not to be proved. Furthermore, under law no limitation runs against co-sharer to enforce rights under the inheritances. Plaintif fs/respondents have successfully proved their suit through reliable evidence. The two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners/ defendants resorting to the well established principle of appreciation of evidence which cannot be disturbed by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 1 15, C.P .C.
9. The nutshell of the above discussion is that, the instant petition has no merit, hence, dismissed by upholding the judgments/decrees of the learned two Courts below . Petitioners/defendants to bear cost. File after due completion be consigned to record.