This Civil Revision arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh whereby he on 17-6-1981 reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Leiah, dated 11-12-1974 decreeing the suit for declaration filed by Mst. Fiza and others, the respondents, against Hamid Ali, petitioner.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that Mst. Fiza and others brought a suit for declaration to the effect that they being legal heirs of Nabi Bakhsh deceased are owners in possession of the suit land left by Nabi Bakhsh, deceased. The suit was contested by Hamid Ali, petitioner/defendant who raised preliminary objection and denied the averments in the plaint. On the pleadings the following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the form of suit is not correct? OPD
(2) Whether the valuation for court-fee and jurisdiction is incorrect? OPD
(3) Whether the description of property is incorrect? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is bad due to misjoinder of parties? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff No.1 as widow and plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 as daughters and sons, respectively of Nabi Bakhsh deceased are owners in possession of the suit land as heirs? OPP
(7) Whether Mutation No. 3980 dated 27-7-1973 is illegal, against facts and as such ineffective and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiffs'! OPP
(8) Relief.
The trial Court finding all the issues in favour of the petitioner/ defendant dismissed the suit on 14- 5-1978. Feeling aggrieved the respondents filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge who while accepting the appeal decreed the suit to the extent of plaintiffs/ defendants other than Mst. Fiza.
3. The learned counsel has raised the following points:-
(i) that the learned Additional District Judge has not decided issues 1 and 2 which were found in favour of the petitioner /defendant which were sufficient to non-suit the respondent/defendant;
(ii) that oral as well as the documentary evidence has not been properly appreciated and the judgment is passed on misreading and non-reading of oral and documentary evidence.
4. I have considered the arguments in the light of the points raised by the learned counsel. As for point (i) I find that the learned Additional District Judge in paragraph 13 has decided issues Nos. l and 2. Since the declaration relates to inheritance therefore, he has very rightly held that in view of finding on issue No.6, issues 1 and 2 had to be decided in favour of the respondents/ defendants.
As for point (ii) I find that issue No. 6 is issue of fact and the learned Additional District Judge has fully applied his mind to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and has given cogent and sound reasons in support of his conclusion. The learned counsel has failed to point out any material misreading or non-reading of oral or documentary evidence and as such point (ii) raised by the learned counsel does not hold any water. '
5. For what has been stated above there being no merit in the revision the same is dismissed in limine.