1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Rafiq Ahmed Khan and another. It is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 15-1- 1983, passed in RSA No, 6/83.
2. ' Briefly the background of the case is that on the death of Rajab Khan, mutation of his property was entered through inheritance in the names of his two sons, namely, Rafiq Ahmad and Altaf Ahmad (petitioners herein) and their mother Mst. Sat Bharai, widow of the deceased. Mahbub Ahmad Khan respondent No, 1 herein appeared before the Revenue Officer claiming himself to be the son of Rajab Khan deceased, from his other wife Mst. Roshan Mai who also claimed inheritance. In the inheritance proceedings before the revenue authorities, Mehbub Ahmad Khan also offered that if the elders of the 'Beradari' including Riaz Hussain take oath on Holy Quran that he is not the son of Rajab Khan, then he would withdraw the claim. The said elders did so and the respondent No, 1 withdrew his claim. Consequently, the inheritance mutation in the names of the petitioners and their mother Mst. Sat Bharai was attested on 24-9-1968. Appeal and revision of the respondents Mahbub Ahmad Khan etc before the Revenue Courts also failed.
3. ' The respondent No,1 filed a suit for possession through inheritance as the son of Rajab Khan, before the Civil Judge, Kabirwala. The appellants (herein) contested the suit and on the pleadings of the parties, the learend Civil Judge framed different issues and ultimately the suit of the respondent was dismissed on 13-10-1976. The respondent No,1 filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Multan, who vide his judgment, dated 11-12-1982 accepted the appeal, reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioners' regular second appeal against the said judgment, before the High Court was also dismissed, vide impugned judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners before us attempted to argue that the grounds on which the regular second appeal of the petitioners was dismissed are not proper and the learned High Court did not consider that during the inheritance mutation proceedings before the Revenue Officer, on the offer of the respondent No,1 Riaz Hussain and others have stated on the Holy Quran that respondent No,1 is not the son of Rajab Khan. Thus he was estopped by his conduct to re-open the matter again in the civil Courts.
5. ' A perusal of the record will show that Mst. Roshan Mai (P.W.5) was the legally wedded wife of Rajab Khan before her second marriage with Sher Khan (P.W.2) and Mehbub Ahmad was her legitimate son from her first husband. Rajab Ali. This statement finds corroboration from other witnesses. Haibat Khan (P.W.4) in his statement claimed that he was present when the Nikah ceremony of Rajab Khan with Mst. Roshan Mai was performed and Mehbub Ahmed Khan was born after 1-1/4 years of the said marriage. The P.W. Has also disclosed about the divorce of Mst. Roshan Mai from Rajab Khan which had taken place after three years of their marriage. Nasir Khan P.W.6 had also given the same evidence. Sher Khan P W 2, the present husband of Mst. Roshan Mai had stated in his evidence that Mahbub Ahmad is the son of Roshan Mai from her previous husband Rajab Khan. An extract of admission register from School of the year 1931, in which Mahbub Ahmad has been recorded as the son of Rajab Khan is also placed on record. Although there are some evidence in rebuttal of the claim of the respondent No,1. But in our opinion the evidence adduced by the witnesses in favour of the respondent No,1 are logical and based on truth. Thus there can be no doubt that Mahbub Ahmad is the legitimate son of Rajab Khan because his acknowledgement is proved by evidence on record. As far as the revenue proceedings are concerned, it can be said that the revenue authorities are independent in their matters and shall have no effect on the civil proceedings, therefore, the findings or orders of the revenue Courts are not binding on the civil Courts. The point involved in this case relates to the question of facts, which the learned District Judge has thoroughly examined and arrived at a correct conclusion by accepting the appeal of Mahbub Ahmad and the learned High Court, rightly not interfered.
6. ' The result is that this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.