SHAHID KHAN, J.- The petitioners have called in question the judgment & decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Chakdara, Dir Lower, dated 28.02.2023, whereby, he dismissed appeal of the petitioners and consequently, maintained the judgment & decree, dated 27.10.2022, of the learned Civil Judge-I, Dir Lower at Chakdara, in respect of the subject property, detailed in Annexures A, B & C.
2. Facts of the case shortly are that the respondents/plaintiffs approached the learned trial Court through a /is for declaration coupled with permanent/mandatory injunction, possession through partition and cancellation of documents/sale deeds, if any, executed by the petitioners/defendants in respect of the subject property as well as recovery of produce, to the effect that both the parties are the descendants of Umar Badshah; that the subject property, detailed in Annexures A, B & C, is his legacy, wherein, the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to their respective Shari shares and that the petitioners/defendants have no right to deny it.
3. The subject claim was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing their written statement.
After recording evidence, far & against followed by hearing of learned counsel for the parties, the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree, dated 27.10.2022, followed by the judgment & decree, dated 28.02.2023, of the learned appellate Court with the same fate, hence, the subject Revision Petition.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners have been heard and with his valuable assistance, the record gone through.
5. In the subject case, the factum of relationship of the respondents/plaintiffs, being real daughters of Umar Badshah, is admitted, however, the question for determination before this Court is that whether the subject property is the legacy of the said Umar Badshah or the petitioners/defendants had purchased it through different deeds. The claim of the respondents/plaintiffs is that the subject property is the legacy of common predecessor-in-title, Umar Badshah, wherein, they are entitled to their respective shari shares. However, the petitioners/defendants have taken the plea that in fact their predecessor was basically the resident of Chinarona, Tehsil Timergara and later on, migrated to village Khadagzai Nagram of Tehsil Adenzai, where he was not owner in possession of any property. They have contended that the subject property is not the legacy of common predecessor rather purchased by them through deeds, dated 16.02.1989, 10.12.1991, 23.12.1992. & 22.05.1996, followed by its partition vide partition deed, dated 29.01.2006. It is also their contention that there was no house of the petitioners/defendants in village Khadagzai, as such, their maternal uncle, Sherin Bacha, had given them land beneath their residential house vide deed, dated 07.07.1977.
6. In support of their contentions, the respondents/plaintiffs produced Khan Muhammad, Habib-ul- Hassan, Azim Muhammad, Fazal Mehniood, Hussain Gul and Bilal Ahmad as PWs-1 to 6. PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that they had sold out their property to the petitioners/defendants. He, however, explained that they had not sold their property to the petitioners/defendants rather sold it to their father, i.e., Umar Badshah. Similarly, PW-2 also stated in his cross-examination that in the year 1980, his father had sold out his property to father of the petitioners/defendants. Likewise, PW- 3 admitted in his cross-examination that ancestral property of Umar Badshah was situated at village Sar Chinarono. PW-5 made the following admissions in his cross-examination: {{URDU TEXT}} Special attorney of the respondents/ plaintiffs appeared as PW-6, who stated in his cross- examination that: {{URDU TEXT}}
7. On the other hand, the petitioners/defendants, in their defence, produced ten witnesses. DW-1 and DW-2 are the marginal witnesses of the deed, dated 16.02.1989, through which the petitioners/defendants have statedly purchased certain property from their maternal uncle, Sherin Bacha. However, their testimonies are contradictory to each other as DW-1 stated during the course of his cross-examination that the aforesaid deed was scribed by Mian Muhammad in the field in front of a house. He also stated that at that time, he alongwith Faqir and Gul Zarin (DW-2) were present. Whereas, DW-2 stated in his cross-examination that the aforesaid deed was neither scribed in front of a house nor in the field rather scribed in the baitak of Salar Ahmad and Muhammad Naeem. As such, the aforesaid deed could not be relied upon. Moreso, DWs-4 & 6 in their respective cross-examinations admitted that predecessor-in-title of the parties had purchased certain property in village Nagram. So far as contention of the petitioners/defendants that the land beneath their house had been given to them by their maternal uncle is concerned, in this regard, DW-8, during the course of his cross-examination, stated that predecessor-in-title of the parties was not owner by purchase in village Nagram rather land beneath the house was given to his wife by her brother, Sherin Mula. Similarly, DW-10 in his cross-examination stated that: {{URDU TEXT}} He also stated that they had not given due shares to their sisters (plaintiffs) in the subject property.
From the evidence, so recorded, it is clear that predecessor-in-title of the parties was owner in possession of certain property, which he left as legacy, however, the petitioners/defendants tried to deprive the respondents/plaintiffs from their due shares in the legacy by relying upon certain sale deeds, which they have not been able to prove as no reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence has been produced by them in support of their contentions.
8. It is well-settled that the moment a Muslim dies, his legacy devolves upon all his legal heirs as per their respective prescribed shares and if any person disputes or controverts these prescribed shares, then a heavy burden of proof lies upon him to prove those exceptional circumstances through reliable, confidence inspiring and legal admissible evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of Havat Bibi and others v. Alamzeb and other reported as 2022 SCMR 13, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "On the death of a muslim, all his properties will devolve upon his all legal heirs as per their shares prescribed by Islamic Shariah and possession of any legal heir shall be deemed to possession by all. If anyone claims an exclusive possession as against the shares as determined by Islamic Shariah, the burden to establish such claim is upon him/her."
However, in the subject case, the petitioners/defendants have not been able to establish such claim through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence.
9. In inheritance cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also shown an immense displeasure and dismay over the conduct of male heir, who are regularly excluding the female heirs from their respective share in the estate of their common predecessor. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the case of Mst. Parveen (deceased) through LRs v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others reported as 2022 SCMR 64, wherein, it was held that: "We may once again state that, we are dismayed to observe the all too frequent practice in Pakistan of male heirs resorting to fraud and other tactics to deprive female heirs from their inheritance. While this deprivation causes suffering to those deprived, it also unnecessarily taxes the judicial system of the country, resulting in a needless waste of resources. Each and every day that a male heir deprives a female heir is also an abomination because it contravenes what has been ordained by Almighty Allah."
In its recent judgment rendered in the case of Muhammad Rafici v. Mst. Ghulam Zoharan Mai and another reported as 2023 SCMR 988, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "7. The appellant deprived his mother and sister from their inheritance. Many females do not have the wherewithal to approach the Courts to obtain their rights. Those like the respondents that do, suffer, and often have to wait for years, to get what was rightfully theirs to begin with. The appellant proceeded on the assumption, like some male heirs do, that even if they eventually lose the case, they would still get the usufruct of the land by illegally retaining its possession over the years spent in litigation.
The Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal with costs throughout and also imposed special costs of Rs. 500,000/- on the appellant. The concluding part of the judgment is also reproduced as under: "8. This appeal should never have been filed and we have no hesitation in dismissing it, and do so with costs throughout. We also impose special costs in the amount of Rs.500,000 (five hundred thousand rupees) on the appellant as the defence taken by him was vexatious and false. Costs to be paid by the appellant to the surviving respondent. If costs are not paid the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the appellant, and till costs are paid they shall continue to constitute a charge on the estate of the appellant."
10. To conclude, it is observed that the learned trial Court coupled with the learned appellate Court, in view of proper appraisal of the facts & circumstances and the evidence so recorded, have arrived at the just conclusion of the matter in issue, as such, the impugned concurrent findings of the learned Courts below do not need any interference. Reliance is placed on the case of Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar reported as 2022 SCMR 1054, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "Section 115, C.P.C empowers and mete out the High Court to satisfy and reassure itself that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied that aforesaid principles have not been unheeded or disregarded by the Courts below, it has no power to interfere in the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or if the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or conflicting to the law. Furthermore, the High Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C."
Similarly, in the case of Salamat All and others v. Muhammad Din and others reported as PLD 2022 Supreme Court 353, it was observed: "A revisional Court cannot upset a finding of fact of the Court(s) below unless that finding is the result of misreading, non-reading, or perverse or absurd appraisal of some material evidence.
The revisional Court cannot substitute the finding of the Court(s) below with its own merely for the reason that it finds its own finding more plausible than that of the Court(s) below."
In Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others reported as PLD 2022 Supreme Court 13, it was also held that: "It is well settled exposition of law, deducible from plethora of dictums laid down by superior Courts that section 115, C.P.C. empowers and meted out the High Court to satisfy and reassure itself that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied that aforesaid principles have not been unheeded or disregarded by the Courts below, it has no power to interfere in the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
Likewise, in the case of Khudadad v. Sved Ghazanfar Ali Shah alias S. Inaam Hussain and others reported as 2002 SCMR 933, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court has a narrow & limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent rulings arrived at by the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. Relevant findings of the Apex Court are reproduced as under: "The High Court has a narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent rulings arrived at by the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. These powers have been entrusted and consigned to the High Court in order to secure effective exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities which cannot be invoked against conclusion of law or fact which do not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the court but confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law, but interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not possible in revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be mixed up or bewildered."
11. For the stated reasons, the subject Revision Petition, is devoid of any merit, as such, it is hereby dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.