MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, CJ.----Petitioners have preferred this civil revision petition against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court Skardu, whereby the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal bearing CPA No.95/ 2014 on 12-10-2015 by maintaining the judgment and decree of learned senior civil judge Skardu passed in civil suit No.48/201 1 on 30-10-2014.
2. Facts of the case in hand has been elucidated by the learned First Appellate Court in para-2 of his judgment passed in CF A No.95/2014, the same are reproduced below:- "that the appellants/plaintif fs instituted a suit for declaration and possession of suit land fully described in the head note of plaint against the defendants/plaintif fs in the trial Court claiming that the appellants/plaintif fs being legal heirs of their great grand father Suliaman are entitled to get their 2/5 sharie share from the suit land presently in the possession of respondent/defendant No.1 Mst. Juno daughter of Suliaman".
3. On the other hand present respondents/defendants by way of filing their written statement contested the suit and denied the averments of the plaint on many legal and factual grounds.
4. From the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court has framed 14 issues including issue of relief and after pro and contra evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintif fs/present petitioners vide judgment/ decree dated 30-10-2014. Being dis-content with the said judgment/ decree present petitioners/ plaintif fs have preferred civil first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court Skardu. The learned District Judge / First Appellate Court Skardu after hearing the arguments of the parties dismissed the civil first appeal of the present petitioners / plaintif fs and maintained the judgment/ decree of the learned trial court. Being dis-satisfied with the said judgment/ decree of the . learned District Judge Skardu, petitioners / plaintif fs have preferred the instant civil revision petition before this Court.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to filing the instant civil suit therefore the learned trial Court respondent No.1 Mst. Jano had instituted a civil suit before the learned trial Court against the present respondent No.5. The learned trial Court after completion of the proceedings and hearing arguments of the parties dismissed the said Suit vide judgment/decree dated 07-9-1989. The present respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge Skardu and the learned District Judge Skardu after hearing the arguments of the parties set aside the judgment/ decree dated 07-9-1989 of the learned trial Court and suit of the present respondent No.1 was decreed vide judgment/decree dated 15-9-1991.
Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment / decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, present respondent No.5 preferred a civil 2nd appeal before the then Northern Areas Chief Court camp at Skardu. The learned Chairman, NAs Chief Court after hearing the parties dismissed the civil 2nd appeal and maintained the judgment/decree passed by the learned District Judge Skardu vide judgment dated 04-06-1991.
6. The present petitioners have preferred an application under section 12(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. against the judgment dated 04-6-1991 passed by this Court in Civil 2nd appeal bearing No.CSA30/1991 for setting aside the judgment dated 4-6-1991. After completion of proceedings in the said petition filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. and hearing of arguments this court has dismissed the petition of present petitioners filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. vide judgment/ order dated 14-5-2 010 and in the said judgment this court has held that "if the present petitioners too, bonafidely think that Suliaman was the real proprietor of the land they have any share under this plea, they may claim through independent suit against the present respondents if advised ".
Hence, the present petitioners have filed the instant suit before the learned trial Court.
7. It order to prove their claim/contention plaintif fs/present petitioners have recorded their statement through attorney and examined two witnesses and relied documentary evidence Exh.P .1 to Exh.P-5 and also produced two witnesses in rebuttal, while defendants/present respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have recorded their statement through their attorney and also relied on documentary , evidence Exh.D-1 to Exh.D-7 in support of their written statement.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned First Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have passed the impugned judgme nts/decrees in hasty manner without fulfilling the mandatory provisions of law, hence, liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has not recorded his findings in the light of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C., therefore, the judgment/decree is not mainta inable. He further submitted that judgments/decrees passed by the learned Courts below are contrary to law and facts of the case, hence, the judgments/decrees are liable to be set aside. Lastly , he argued that the judgments/decrees of both the Court below are result of mis-reading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence and materials available on file, therefore, the judgments/decrees of both the Court may be set aside to meet the ends of justice.
9. On the contrary , the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 strongly opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and defended the judgments/decrees of both the. Courts by asserting that the Petitioners/plaintif fs have no concern with the suit land, as LRs namely Mst. Sakina Bi and Bano Bi have died much before the death of their father namely Suliaman therefore, petitioners are not entitled to inherit the legacy of Suliaman. He further submitted that respondent No.1 Mst. Jano being real daughter is entitled to inherit the entire legacy of his father Suliaman. He further submitted that the judgments/decrees of both the Courts below are result of correct appreciation of documents and materials available on file, therefore, liable to be maintained in dismissal of the petition in hand.
10. I have heard arguments of the learne d counsel for the parties and have minute ly gone through the record with their able assistance.
11. It evinced from the record that the suit land is legacy of late Suliaman and according to pedigree table annexed with the suit in hand late Suliaman has four issues i.e. on son and three daughters, namely Ghulam Hussain, Mst.
Sakina, Mst. Bano and Mst. Jano (present respondent No.1). It is evident from record that Mst. Bano and Mst.
Sakina Bi have died during life time of late Suliaman and the entire legacy has left with his sole LR namely Ghulam Hussain. Further that Ghulam Hussain has one son/heir namely Qurbano and the said Qurbano has died issueless and after the death of Ghulam Hussain and Qurbano the widow of Ghulam. Hussain contracted nikah with one Ali Hussain and from the said wedlock present respondent No.5 was born and the said respondent No.5 being uterine brother of Qurbano, occupied the land in suit and after a long litigation between respondent No.1 and respondent No.5, respondent No.1 succeeded to take possession of the land after obtaining a Court decree. Present respondent No.1 Mst. Jano is real daughter of the late Suliman is entitled to inherit the legacy of her father . It is admitted position in the case that parties to the suit belongs to Shia Faith and under the Shia law of inheritance the nearer LR of the deceased excludes the remoter LR.
12. Both learned Courts below have passed the impugned judgments/ decrees after proper appreciation of the material available on the record, thereof the concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. No mis-reading, non- reading or unlawful exercise of jurisdiction could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below .
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant revision petition being meritless, is hereby dismissed by upholding the judgments/decrees passe d by both the Courts below . File be consigned to record after due completion.