SHAHID WAHEED, J. This appeal with the leave of this Court is by the defendants and raises two very simple questions, whether Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Fateh Khatoon were sisters of Mohammad son of Khanoo and whether they were rightly excluded from the inheritance of Mohammad. Mst.
Nooran Bibi and Mst. Fateh Khatoon (represented by their legal heirs) said that their late brother Mohammad was married to Mst. Zohra daughter of Janoo but had no children and died issueless before 1947 and after his death, according to custom, all his property (now suit property) devolved on his wife as limited owner, later Mohammad's wife remarried, on which the suit property was to be transferred to all the heirs of Mohammad including his sisters, but on the contrary, the defendants illegally got it transferred to their name -only vide mutation No.675 dated 29th September 1992, and thus, the sisters were deprived of their right. Based on the above-stated facts, the suit was brought before the Civil Court seeking a declaration that Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst.
Fateh Khatoon being real sisters of Mohammad were entitled to get their share from the inheritance of Mohammad and mutation No.675 was void. On the other hand, the stance of the defendants was that Mohammad had no sister, so the claim of the plaintiffs was baseless.
2. On pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as ten issues but out of them issues Nos. 8 and 9 were important. Issue No.8 was whether mutation No.675 dated 29th September, 1992 was void, while issue No.9 was whether Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Fateh Khatoon, were real sisters of Mohammad and died after him? Both parties presented their evidence on these issues. Sultan (PW-1), Manzoor Hussain (PW-2) and Khan Mohammad alias Khanoo, one of the plaintiffs, (PW-3) appeared from the side of the plaintiffs and their counsel in his statement tendered some documents, i.e. copy of Jamabandi for the year 1993-1994 (Exh.P-1), copy of Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Exh.P-2), copy of mutation No.675 (Exh.P-3), copy of amended appeal (Exh.P-4), copy of orders of ADCC (Exh.P-5), copy of mutation No.2006 (EXh.P-6) and copy of birth certificate of Mst.
Nooran Bibi (Exh.P-7). The defendants in their evidence produced Habib (DW-1), one of the defendants, and. Ghulam Mohammad (DW-2). Their counsel in his statement tendered copy of mutation No.2004 (Exh.D-1), copy of mutation No.2005 (Exh.D-2), Copy of mutation No.675 (Exh.D-3), copy of mutation No.2005 (Exh.D-4), copy of plaint (Exh.D-5), copy of orders (Exh.D-6), copy of pedigree-table (Exh.D-7), copy, of mutation No.1837 (Exh.D-8) and copy of mutation No.1836 (Exh.D- 9).
3. After examining the statements of witnesses and the documents, the trial Court concluded that Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Fateh Khatoon were the sisters of Mohammad. Accordingly, the trial Court through its judgment dated 21st April 2001, issued a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.
4. On appeal, the Additional District Judge re-examined the evidence and returned following findings: "10. The respondents also examined one Manzoor Hussain son of Khan Muhammad as P. W.
2. He has deposed that he knows both the parties; that he also knows Muhammad deceased. Though he has admitted that said Muhammad deceased has died before attaining his age of puberty, yet he is the Lumberdar of village Rohila Gharbi, so would be more relevant person. He has stated that Mst. Nooran Bibi and Fateh Bibi were sisters of Muhammad deceased, while respondents are legal heirs of those ladies and are entitled to get the inheritance. Khan Muhammad alias Khanoo one of the respondents has appeared as P. W.3. He has deposed that he knows Muhammad deceased, who was his maternal uncle; that name of his maternal grandfather is Khanoo; that his maternal grandfather was survived by one son namely Muhammad and two daughters Nooran Bibi and Fateh Mai; that Fateh Mai is his real mother; that when Muhammad deceased died before partition, the estate was mutated in favour of Zohran Bibi his widow as limited owner; that Mst.
Zohran Bibi contracted second marriage, so mutation of inheritance of Muhammad deceased was entered and attested vide mutation No.675 in favour of Mst. Nooran Bibi and Fateh Mai etc. the widow; that the said mutation was later on cancelled by Consolidation Officer and appeal was preferred before the Additional Deputy Commissioner Mianwali, where the matter was referred to Civil Court. He has contended that in pursuance of the reviewed mutation, they have been deprived from inheritance of Muhammad deceased, while they are entitled to inherit him.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants though have conducted the cross-examination on the P.Ws yet after having been giving the anxious consideration. I am of the considered opinion that nothing favourable has come on the record for the appellants. In cross-examination, the case of the respondents has been improved, where it is established that Khanoo was survived by one Muhammad as son, Mst. Nooran Mai and Fateh Mai as daughters. At the advent of death of Muhammad deceased, who was issueless, the estate was mutated in favour of Zohran Mai, his widow; being limited owner. When she contracted the second marriage, the estate would be reverted to the legal heirs of last male owner and was required to be mutated according to the shares of the legal heirs in the Muhammadan Law of Inheritance.
20. In view of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the respondents, which is cogent, strong and confidence inspiring that Mst. Nooran Bibi and Fateh Khatoon were the real sisters of Muhammad deceased, the pedigree table appearing on the mutation No.1837 dated 26.03.43 and mutation No.1836 dated 26.03.43 Ex.D-8 Ex.D-9 respectively would not be sufficient to exclude Mst. Nooran Bibi and Fateh Khatoon from the inheritance of Muhammad deceased. It appears that both these mutations have also been sanctioned incorrectly and without any lawful authority".
Based on the above-cited finding the appeal of the defendants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2006 and that was maintained by the High Court through its judgment and decree dated 21st November, 2006,
5. Now the defendants through this appeal submit before us that the three documents produced by them viz. that pedigree-table (Exh.D-7), mutation No. 1837 (Exh.D-8) and mutation No.1836 (Exh.D-9) have not been properly examined by all the Courts, and thus, their decrees arc not valid.
They say that it is clear from these documents that Mst. Nooran and Mst. Patch Khatoon were not sisters of Mohammad and mutation No.675 (Exh.D-3) was rightly sanctioned.
6. We are not impressed by the arguments of the defendants. They sans merit. It is now well settled that pedigree-table alone and by itself is A not a proof of relationship unless such relationship is proved through witnesses or other independent evidence. If any reference to this effect is needed, the case of Bashir Ahmad through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Hussain and another (2010 SCMR 822) may be cited. A perusal of the evidence available on record indicates that the defendants produced Ghulam Muhammad (DW-2) to prove the pedigree-table (Ex.D.7). The statement of this witness, in our view cannot be believed because he did not state what special means of knowledge he had about the relationship of the parties to the suit. Since no other independent witness appeared on behalf of the defendants to prove the contents of pedigree-table (Ex:D.7), the simple production of pedigree-table (Ex.D.7) through the counsel without any corroborative evidence was not sufficient to conclude that Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Patch Khatoon were not sisters of Muhammad.
7. As regards the other two documents i.e. mutation No.1836 (Exh.D-9) and mutation No.1837 (Exh.D.-8), it is suffice to say that according to principle settled by this Court in the cases reported as Mst. Hameeda Begum and others v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others (2007 SCMR 996), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khan and others (PLD 2010 SC 604) and Province of the Punjab through Collector, Shikhupura and others v.
Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah and others (2017 SCMR 172) the document should be produced in the evidence by the party itself and a fair opportunity should be given to the opposite party to cross- examine the same, as such, the said two documents produced by the defendants counsel in his statement could not Ix taken into consideration.
8. After examining the evidence available on the record, we are not persuaded to take a different view than the three Courts, and we hereby agree with their it findings that Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst.
Fateh Khatoon were sisters Of deceased Mohammad and were illegally excluded from the inheritance of their brother, and, as a consequence, mutation No.675 dated 29th of September, 1992 was not valid.
9. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly dismissed with no order as, to costs.