1. ' This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment, dated 25-10-1986 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) whereby allowing the appeal filed by the third respondent and setting aside the Judgment, dated 22-7-1986 and decree dated 11-8-1986 of the IXth Civil Judge, Karachi.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above revision petition are that the Petitioner filed Suit No,3108 of 1980 against the respondent No,3 and the remaining respondents. The case of the petitioner as set out in her plaint was that she is real daughter of late Haji Umer died in the year 1984, who left the property bearing No,LY-3/18 K.I.A/10, Lyari Quarters known as Tar Muhammad Haji Umer Building. It was her case that she is one of legal heirs of Haji Umar and therefore she has a right to get the share from the said property. She prayed in the suit that the respondents be directed not to sell the property and also be directed not to get the rent of the said building. The respondent No,3 resisted the suit by filing written statement wherein he admitted that the petitioner is daughter of late Haji Umer. He further stated that the petitioner accepted cash compensation and had surrendered her share in favour of Hashim, his father in view of compromise decree passed in Suit No,1323 of 1968. He pleaded dismissal of the suit.
3. ' On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The trial Court on assessment of the evidence on record decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and her suit was decreed in her favour against the respondents.
4. ' The respondent No,3 being aggrieved, went in appeal which was ultimately heard by IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South). On reassessment of evidence on the record, learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner received Rs,3,000 as her share from Hashim, father of the present third respondent. In that view of the matter, he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
5. ' The petitioner, being aggrieved, has come to this Court through revision petition.
6. ' I have heard Mr. M.S. Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Zafar Hadi Shah, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. The remaining respondents though served remained absent for reasons best known to them. I have perused the R & P. Of the case. I have perused the impugned judgments.
7. ' It is not in dispute that Haji Umer died in the year, 1984. He left property bearing No,LY-3/18 K.L.A./10 Lyari Quarters, Karachi. It is also not in dispute that she is one of the legal heirs of Haji Umer. The case of third respondent as pleaded by him was that the Petitioner has no share in the said building in view of the compromise decree passed in Suit No,1323 of 1968. It has come on record that Kassim and Hashim filed suit No,1323 of 1968 against Tar Muhammad and five others. Mst.
8. Sarabai, the present petitioner was impleaded in that suit as defendant No,4. According to the plaint the Petitioner had 1/9th share in the aforesaid property. The value of property as disclosed in the aforesaid suit was Rs, 27,000 and the share of Mst. Sarabai (the present petitioner) was Rs,3,000. A perusal of compromise decree would show that Hashim s/o Umer Ishaque paid the cash compensation to Kassim, Tar Muhammad, Mst. Khatij Mst. Sarabai (Petitioner herein) and Abdul Sattar and the said parties accepted the same in full satisfaction of their claims. The contents of the compromise application were read over to the parties and they admitted the same. It was declared that Hashim is sole owner of the property bearing No,LY-3/18 K.LA./10, Lyari Quarter, Karachi.
9. ' Mr. Khatri contended that Mst. Sarabai had filed an application under Section 12 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which is still pending.
10. ' The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of the above compromise decree dismissed the suit of the petitioner. This is a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge on the basis of compromise decree whereby Hashim was held as the exclusive owner of the property.
11. It is specifically mentioned therein that the petitioner had surrendered her share upon receiving cash compensation of Rs,3,000 from Hashim.
12. This Court under its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot interfere with this finding of facts of the first appellate Court, unless it is established that the judgment suffers from jurisdictional error or some patent illegality or material irregularity or, is the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out by the Plaintiff/Petitioner to justify interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
13. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
14. ' The above are the reasons for the short order, dated 16-9-1990 dismissing the revision petition on conclusion of the arguments.