These two Civil Revision petitions No. 133 of 1987 (Mst. Bibi Shahida v. Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana) and Civil Revision No.1 of 1988 (Mst. Bibi Halima v. Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana) have arisen out of two separate suits instituted for challenging the judgments and decrees in Suit No.281/I passed in favour of Mst.
Bibi Nawab Jana, respondent No.1 herein.
2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana, who is the sister of respondents 4 and 5 herein, instituted Suit No. 281/1 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bannu, against the co-respondents including Saeed-ur-Rehman's and Aziz-ur-Rehman's, sons of Abdur Rahman, claiming her shari share in the joint property left by their father. Saeed-ur-Rehman's and Aziz-ur-Rehman's fully contested the suit upto the High Court however, Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana was declared to be the owner of 7/48 share in the suit property. Having failed up to this Court, Saeed-ur-Rehman's and Aziz-ur-Rehman's both managed to challenge the said decree, which had attained finality, by instituting Suit No.182/1 in the name of Mst. Bibi Halima, the were of Aziz-ur-Rehman's, on the ground that the said decree was ineffective on their rights and prayed for an injunction that final decree shall not be passed in favour of Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana. Both the suits were resisted by Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana on several legal and factual pleas.
3. The allegations in both the suits by the plaintiffs arc that their husbands have, gifted the suit property in lieu of their dower which Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana denied and categorically stated that Saeed-ur-Rehman's and Aziz-ur-Rehman's have failed to deprive her of shari share in the disputed property up to the High Court while manufacturing unregistered dower deeds in favour of their wives and managed to institute both these suits in their names in order to prolong their agonies.
The learned trial Judge after recording evidence of the parties while relying on the un-registered dower deeds decreed the plaintiffs suits. However, in the appeals filed by Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana, the learned Additional District Judge elaborately dealt with the merits of the case in light of the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides and formed his view that the dower deeds, although not proved in accordance with law, have been pre-dated and the suits have been brought in the names of the present petitioners so as to arrest further proceedings for a final decree in favour of Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana in pursuance of the preliminary decree which had attained finality. The learned Additional District Judge, however, observed that Saeed-ur-Rehman's and Aziz-ur-Rehman's having admitted that they have given the property in dower to their wives and on that score, the plaintiffs were declared entitled to the shares which the donors had in the suit property. However, such declaration was held to have no affect on the preliminary decree passed in favour of Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana in the earlier suit. It was further held that Saeed-ur- Rehman's and Aziz-ur-Rehman's, who are brothers of Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana, were not entitled to give in dower to their wives the share owned by their sister. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiffs have filed the present revision petitions.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, I find no merit in both these revision petitions. Admittedly, Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana had brought Suit No.208/1 against Saeed-ur-Rahman, Aziz-ur---Rehman's and their sister Mst. Sardar Bibi for possession by partition of her 7/48 share in the suit property in the inheritance of her. Father which was decreed in her favour on 16-5-1981 by the trial Judge and the decree passed in their favour was affirmed in appeal. The decree in Suit No.217/87 passed in favour of the defendants was held ineffective on her rights. It may be pointed out that in Suit No.217/1, Saeed-ur-Rehman's and his brother had denied their sister of her shari share in the suit property and the matter had gone to the Martial Law authorities where a compromise had been effected on 1-10-1987. However, when the defendants subsequently denied her rights and resiled from the compromise, it necessitated the filing of aforementioned suits for partition. The plea of the defendants in that suit that the disputed property was their personal property and that it did not belong to their father as he was 'Malang' and had no property of his own was not repelled and the suit was decreed in favour of Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana which attained finality. In the instant suit based on the alleged unregistered dower deeds, the plaintiff only examined the Petition Writer and made her own statement and closed her evidence. Relevant part of the statement of Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana is reproduced as follows:- I have been brought to the Katehery by my husband. On the directions of my husband the plaint was drafted. The scriber of the plaint was read out to my husband as I was observing parda.
Therefore, the Petition-writer did not read it over to me. It is also a fact that the relevant papers attached with the plaint were corrected by my husband. The dower deed was scribed 7/8 years back prior to the institution of the present suit. It is incorrect to say that the dower deed was scribed during the pendency of the suit between Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana and Saeed-ur-Rehman's. The litigation betwen these two was started some two years back. EX.P.W.1/1 was scribed by the Petition-Writer in Winter season in the District Courts. The marginal witnesses were not present at the time of scribing the dower deed. One Aziz-ur-Rehman's was also present at that time but he has written his dower deed after six months of my dower deed. The dower deed was scribed at my instance as my husband was sick and was lying in the Civil Hospital. Again said that in the days of scribing the deed, Saeed-ur-Rehman's was not admitted in the hospital. The marginal witnesses are present in Court but I do not produce them".
5. From the above, it is clearly evident that when Saeed-ur-Rehman's and Aziz-ur-Rehman's failed in the efforts to deprive their sister from getting her shari share, they with the connivance of the scribe who is also a stamp-vendor, introduced the unregistered dower deeds in order to further prolong her agonies by staying the proceedings for final decree. The marginal witnesses were purposely withheld and the presumption would be that they were not supporting A the plaintiffs.
The genuineness of these deeds were, therefore, n6t proved. The fraudulent and collusive nature of these suits is manufactured from the statement of one of the plaintiff reproduced above. Anyhow, on the facts and circumstances of the case when the property has been declared to be ancestral in the earlier suit and Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana entitled to her shari share. Even if the dower deeds are proved, which is not the case, Saeed-ur-Rehman's and Aziz-ur-Rehman's could transfer their own shares in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein only.
5-A. For the reasons, the findings of the learned Additional District Judge based on proper appraisal of the evidence on the record and supported by sound reasonings, requires no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Both the revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs.