MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. -- This Civil Revision calls in question the judgment dated 4.6.1984 of learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners upholding the judgment dated 28.6.1979 of learned Civil Judge, Shahpur.
2. One Ahmad son of Sadda died on 12.2.1969 leaving behind a widow Mst. Jallan and Muhammad as brother. He owned some land in village Bhakkar, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha. Mutation No. 1080 was attested by Revenue Officer on 4.6.1969 whereby 1/4th share in the land was mutated in favour of the widow while 3/4th was mutated in favour of the brother. Muhammad then filed a suit that he was the sole owner of the suit land as deceased Ahmad was a Shia and, as such, his issueless widow could not inherit from hid estate comprising agricultural land. Mst. Jallan tiled a written statement denying that Ahmad was a Shia. This factual controversy was put to the following issue by the learned Civil Judge:- "Whether Ahmad deceased was a Shia?"
Evidence of the parties was recorded and the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit after finding the deceased to he Sunni. The petitioners filed an appeal which met the same fate.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record appended with the Civil Revision with their assistance.
4. Ch.- Sardar A.I, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the learned Addl.
District Judge had wrongly rejected document Ex.P-2 which purports to he the death entry of Ahmad deceased. On the other hand, Ch. Nazir Ahmad Kamhoh, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the document was rightly excluded from consideration.
5. I have gone through the document Ex.P-2. Reliance of the petitioners is on the entry in column No. 4 of the said document, wherein deceased Ahmad is described as a Jafri Shia. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent to document Ex.D-1, also referred to by the learned Addl. District Judge and discussed in his judgment by him which states in the same column that the religion of the deceased was Islam. I find that in this state of affairs the document Ex.P-2 is not worthy of any .Credence. The two Courts below, had rightly observed that the said column required mentioning of religion and not of sect of a deceased person. Apart from this, the entry in the Register of Deaths has been made relevant by Article 49 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984. In my jumble opinion, this entry is relevant only for the purpose of proof of death of a person and the time of his death. It will not be safe to rely on such an entry to determine the religion or sect of a deceased person. I draw support for my opinion from a decision in the case Gurusarni Nadar v. Irulappa Konar and others (AIR 1934 Madras 630) where a statement in the Death Register describing the deceased as a Christian was held not to be reliable on the ground that it was certainly not the statement of the deceased. In fact, admissibility of such a statement is very much doubtful. In the present case, the Chaukidar who reported the death of Ahmad deceased, was produced as DW-4. This witness happened to be Shia, but he stated that the deceased was Sunni and that he did not make a report that the deceased was a Shia.
6. The ocular evidence has been dealt with in sufficient detail by the learned Addl. District Judge.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make out a case of misreading or non- reading of evidence. The learned Courts below rightly observed that in our country there is a presumption that every Muslim citizen is a Sunni unless otherwise proved. The burden of proof has not been discharged by the petitioners in the present case.
7. This Civil Revision is without any force and as such is dismissed with costs.