AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, J. Facts in brevity are that respondents instituted a suit for possession through partition along with permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants with the contention that suit land/house measuring. 03 Kanals and 07 Marlas was owned by Muhammad Ismeel son of Khan Bahadur Ibrahim (ancestor of the respondent/ plaintiff); that the said Muhammad Ismaeel had died issueless; that the respondents/plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 and their mother were entitled to inherit 19/24 share from the legacy of said Ismaeel; that after the death of Mumtaz Begum mother of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff No. 3 became owner to the extent of 1/3 share from her legacy; that respondents/plaintiffs are owners to the extent of 19/24 share from the suit house and petitioner/defendants being returned legal heirs of said Ismaeel are owner to the extent of remaining 5/24 share; that the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are residing with their in-laws, therefore, the whole house was in the possession of defendant No.5 and defendants Nos.1 to 5 intend to demolish the house and are going to change the nature of the house; that the defendants were asked to deliver the possession to the extent of 19/24 (land measuring 2 Kanals and 13 Marlas) but they refused to do so, which constrained them to institute the suit. Petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 and 'petitioners Nos.2 and 3 (defendants Nos. 3 and 4) filed their separate contesting written statements and denied the facts as pleaded in the plaint. Learned trial Court, keeping in view the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. After recording evidence of the parties, pro and contra, learned trial Court passed the preliminary decree dated 29.11.2012. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.2014. Being dissatisfied petitioners have filed this revision petition.
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
3. Basic ingredient of suit for partition is unity of title and unity of possession with regard to the suit property between the parties. Suit property is a constructed house on a land measuring 03 Kanals and 07 Marlas having Khasras Nos.305, 313 and 321 and at present Khasra No.437. Suit property belongs to Ismaeel (father of respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2). Respondents Nos.1 and 2 produced mutation No.488 as Exh.P.2. From perusal of said document, it appears that Mst.
Mumtaz Begum widow of Muhammad Ismaeel was owner of 1/8 share, Mst. Shoaila, Ghazala daughters of Muhammad Ismaeel (respondents Nos.1 and 2) are owner of 2/3 share and Muhammad Hayat is owner of 5/24 share being legal heirs of Muhammad Ismaeel. Said document remained unrebutted and fully established the stance of plaintiffs. Muhammad Hayat was uncle of Muhammad Ismaeel who inherited from the legacy of Ismaeel as Muhammad Ismaeel died without any male issue. Petitioners are legal heirs of Muhammad Hayat as father of petitioners Nos.1 to 7 namely Abdul Wahid was son of Muhammad Hayat. Petitioner No.1/ defendant No.1 while recording his statement deposed that suit house was constructed by Haji Hayat during the years 1942-44 but this ascertain was not proved on record. Muhammad Hayat was brother of Khan Bahadur Ibrahim Khan Bahadur Ibrahim have one son namely Muhammad Ismaeel and four daughters and said daughters were married to the sons of Muhammad Hayat. The suit house was got constructed by Khan Bahadur Ibrahim. Petitioner No. 1/defendant No.1 got recorded his statement as D.W.1 and during cross-examination deposed that Khan Bahadur Ibrahim lived in Burma along with his four daughters and a son Ismaeel. He admitted that Ismaeel was his maternal uncle (Mamoo). He showed his ignorance whether inheritance mutation of Ismaeel was sanctioned or not. He also showed his ignorance that from inheritance of Ismaeel his grandfather got 14 Marlas land. Copy of Jamabandi for the years 1961-62 was available on record as Exh.P.9.
Perusal of said document, it appears that name of Mumtaz Begum 1/8 share, Mst. Sohaila, Ghazala daughters 2/3 equal in share and Muhammad Hayat son of Ghulam Deen 5/24 share reflected in column No.5 of ownership. In presence of Exh.P.2 copy of mutation and Exh. P9 copy of Jamabandi it is established on record that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are owners of the suit property being legal heirs of Muhammad Ismaeel and the learned Courts below, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record rightly passed preliminary decree in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the, petitioners failed to point out any mis- reading non-reading of evidence and jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees of Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners also failed to annex with the petition Ex.P.5 and Exh.P.8, hence, they withheld the relevant record to misguide the Court. The case laws referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. I have not seen any illegality, irregularity and mis-reading or non-reading of evidence on the part of learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. There are concurrent findings of facts in the matter recorded by learned courts below and the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have considered every piece of evidence, oral as well as documentary, produced before them and nothing is shown to have been overlooked any part of the record from their judicious consideration. The findings of the learned courts below on question of facts and law having based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced in the suit, are not liable to be reviewed or substituted by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. In this regard, reliance is placed upon "Syed Husnain Naqvi and others v. Mst. Begum Zakara Chatha through LRs and others"
(2015 SCMR 1081), "Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi" (2012 SCMR 1373), "Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others" (2001 SCMR 1700), "Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others v. Ghulam Ali" (2004 SCMR 1001), "Abdul Mateen and others v. Mustakhia" (2006 SCMR 50) and "Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another" (2008 SCMR 428).
5. For what has been discussed above, the instant Civil Revision is without any merits, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.