M ALIK INAYAT-UR-REHM AN, J. The instant Civil Revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the concurrent findings passed by the learned District Judge Ghizer and the learned Civil Judge First Class Punial vide impugned judgments/decrees dated 31-09-2019 and 12-12-2015 respectively.
2. Brief facts disclosed necessary for filing of the instant revision petition are that present respondent had filed suit (Civil Suit No.32/2013) in the court of the learned Civil Judge First Class Punial/Ishkoman for declaration with possession of her share of lands mentioned in the head note of the plaint wherein she has claimed that she is entitled to get 1/9th of her shari share from the legacy of father of the parties as the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 5 are real brothers and sisters inter-se while defendant No.6 is their step sister. It is also averred that Mr. All Asghar, the elder brother of both the parties, died leaving four female issues and plaintiff do not want to get her shari share from them, hence they were not made party to the suit. The plaintiff claims that the defendants Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the whole legacy left behind by father of the parties and defendants are refusing to hand over shari share to the plaintiff, hence the Civil Suit against the defendants.
3. The present petitioners being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing their joint written statement and raised certain legal as well as factual objections and denied the claim of the present respondent/plaintiff.
4. The learned trial court framed 11 issues and after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties passed its detailed findings on the issues and partially decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff is entitled to get her shari share as 1/11th and not 1/9th from the lands in possession of defendant No.1 namely Shahzada Hassan and directed him to hand over the shari share of the plaintiff to her.
5. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment/decree of the learned trial court, the petitioners filed an appeal (CFA No.09/2015) in the court of the learned District Judge Ghizer. The learned First Appellate Court has also formulated five points/additional issues for determination of the fate of the Civil First Appeal and after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners and maintained the judgment/decree of the learned Trial Court.
6. The petitioners have preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the same are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. He has further argued that the suit of respondent was clearly time barred but both the courts below have not considered this crucial point hence both the judgments/decrees are liable to be set aside. He has further submitted that the respondent had not impleaded the offspring of late Ali Asghar as necessary party to the suit, but the learned Trial Court failed to follow the mandatory provisions of law and had passed the impugned judgment/decree in a hasty manner and on flimsy grounds and in a slipshod manner. The learned counsel prayed for setting aside both the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below and to dismiss the suit of respondent.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgments/ decrees passed by both the lower courts below and prayed for dismissal of the instant revision petition as meritless as none of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are relevant or established from record.
'9. I have considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
10. It is established from the record that the plaintiff is real daughter of the deceased father of the parties and the suit land is part of the legacy left behind by the father of the parties.
11. It is further established from the evidence of the parties that plaintiff has not received her shari share from the legacy of her deceased father which was liable to be declared as such and share given to the plaintiff accordingly.
12. The concurrent findings of the learned courts below have endorsed the right of the plaintiff and learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality/infirmity in the impugned orders but it is noted in the case that the plaintiff had prayed 1/9th share from the legacy which was determined to be 1/11th by the learned Trial Court and this was maintained as such by the learned appellate court vide the impugned judgment.
13. In law the plaintiff was entitled to receive 1/11th share from the whole legacy left behind by her father but it is evident from the record that plaintiff has relinquished her claim in the properties held by children of her deceased brother Ali Asghar and has also despite knowledge did not participate in the case filed by Mohammad Khan etc. against the defendants and has also effected compromise with defendant Harf Jan on 22-02-2015 in the Trial Court, therefore, share of the plaintiff in the present suit land had fallen and reduced to 1/22, i.e., half of 1/11th due to her relinquishments as such the impugned judgments warrant interference of this Court to the extent of declaration of the extent of the plaintiff.
14. For the reasons above, the plaintiff was entitled for a decree against defendant No.1 in her favour only to the extent of 1/22 share only.
15. In view of the above, the revision petition is hereby partially accepted and the impugned judgments are accordingly varied as above to the extent of share of the plaintiff as 1/22 instead of 1/11th and rest of the impugned judgments are maintained. Petition disposed of accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File.