Briefly stated the facts are that Ghulam Abbas, grand-father of the plaintiffs/petitioners was a Shia who died on 8-3-1999. Sabir Hussain was son of Ghulam Sadiq who died during the lifetime of Ghulam Sadiq in 1980 and as such none except the plaintiffs/petitioners is heir of Ghulam Sadiq.
The said Ghulam Sadiq was holder of licence of Tazia Dari of Imam Bargah known as Ghazi Alamdar situated in Mohallah Mula Tehsil Pindi Gheb and was also its Mutwali. Ghulam Sadiq aforementioned and the plaintiffs have been residing together till he was removed by defendant/respondent about 35/40 days prior to his death to reap undue benefit from him. On 5- 3-1999 when Ghulam Sadiq was aged 94/95 years and was suffering from "Mart-ul---Maut" the defendant/Respondent got a fake will executed from him in his favour regarding the licence of Tazia Dari as well as of Mutwliship of aforementioned Imam Bargah. Through this suit the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the said will deed dated 5-3-1999 being result of undue influence and having been executed during the "Marz-ul-Maut" of Ghulam Sadiq deceased. The suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant who stated that he was Mutwalli of said Imam Bargah and regarding this very matter the civil suit had been instituted in the Court at Pindi Gheb in which on 22-2-1999 Ghulam Sadiq (since deceased) had sworn an affidavit in his favour accepting him as Mutwalli of the said Imam Bargah. He further asserted that an affidavit dated 18-1-1999 was also executed by Ghulam Sadiq wherein he had admitted his possession over Imam Bargah in his capacity as Mutwalli. He denied the averments of the petitioners/plaintiffs as mentioned in the plaint and prayed that the suit be dismissed as will deed dated 5-3-1999 had been executed by Ghulam Sadiq with his free consent and without any undue pressure and coercion exercised upon him.
2. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether "will" dated 5-3-1999 has been procured by undue influence, weakness, unconsciousness on the death bed, and it is liable to be cancelled, as being ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff? OPP
(2) Whether plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Ghulam Sadiq? OPP
(3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get the suit property? OPP
(4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to become "Mutwalli" of the "Imam Bargah"? OPP
5. Relief.
3. In support of their stand the petitioners/plaintiffs examined one of the plaintiffs Qamar Abbas as P.W.1 and also examined Ghulam Shaukat as P.W.2. They produced document Exh.P.1, copy of order of Assistant Commissioner Pindi Gheb and document Exh. P.2 which is copy of order dated 14-5- 1995. Thereafter, defendant respondent examined Sabat-e-Hasnain Naqvi, Advocate D.W.1 who is petition writer and at whose dictation will deed Exh.P-1 was executed by his Munshi Abdul Rehman, Munshi Abdul Rehman D.W.2 admitted the execution of will deed Exh.D-1, Qazi Muhammad Naseer is the Stamp Vendor who deposed that he had sold stamp papers Bearing NO-2910 dated 18-1- 1999 and 2487 dated 25-1-1999 in favour of Ghulam Sadiq, Sh. Aftab Hussain, Advocate D.W.4 is the Oath Commissioner who attested affidavits Exhs.D-2 dated 18-1-1999 and Aaq Nama Exh.D-3 dated 27-1-1999 and both the said documents were executed by Ghulam Sadiq, Sher A.I D.W.5 is the scribe of affidavit Exh.D-2. The respondent/defendant Irshad Hussain recorded his statement D.W.6 Muhammad Hanif D.W.7 is a marginal witness of will deed Exh D--1 who has certified the contents thereof. The respondent/defendant also brought on record copy of death entry of Ghulam Sadiq Exh. D-4, Abtaal Nama EJCh.D-5, affidavit Exh. D-6, executed by Ghulam Sadiq in favour of Irshad Hussain in a suit for declaration filed by Irshad Hussain against Ghulam Sadiq, document Exh.D-7 is agreement executed by Barkat Hussain in favour of Irshad Hussain regarding the relinquishment of his right regarding Imam Bargah referred above, document Exh.D-8 is another affidavit by Barkat Hussain in favour of Irshad Hussain regarding the appointment of Irshad Hussain and Mutawalli of the said Imam Bargah.
4. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 28-3-2000. The said judgment was assailed by filing an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Attock who vide judgment and decree dated 24-5-2000 dismissed the same. Hence the instant civil revision.
5. Arguments have been heard and the record persued.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs is that both the Courts below have not gone through the evidence produced before the Court in its true perspective and as such the impugned judgments suffer from misreading and non-reading of the evidence.
7. The judgment rendered in the instant lis have been gone into with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs.
8. 'The only point which has been agitated by the petitioners/plaintiffs is that will deed dated 5-3- 1999 executed by Ghulam Sadiq in favour of Irshad Hussain is the result of undue influence and was' executed when Ghulam Sadiq was suffering from Marz-ul-Maut. To prove their contention the petitioners/plaintiffs have examined P.W. 1 and P.W.2 and have brought on record documents Exh.P-1 and Exh. P-2. To rebut their contention the respondent/defendant has brought on record the statements of seven D.Ws. Including his own statement and has also brought on record document Exh. P-4 to Exh. P-8. The respondent/defendant has not only examined scribe of will deed Exh-D-1 who is Abdul Rehman D.W.2 but has also examined Syed Sabt-e-Hasnain Naqvi D.W.1 on whose dictation the will deed Exh. D-1 was executed. He has examined Muhammad Hanif D.W.7 who is one of the marginal witnesses of will deed. He has also examined Sh., Aftab Hussain, Advocate D.W. 4 who had attested affidavit Exh. D-2 and Aaq Nama Exh. D-3 which' were executed by Ghulam Sadiq deceased in favour of Irshad Hussain respondent/defendant. Even the vendor of stamp papers upon which affidavit Exh.D-2 and Aaq Nama Exh. D-3 were executed has been examined and he is Qazi Muhammad Naseer D.W.3. It is thus, clear that the petitioners/plaintiffs simply asserted that will deed Exh. D-1 was the result of coercion, undue influence and was executed when its executant i.e. Ghulam Sadiq was under the imminent danger to his life (Marz-ul-Mout) whereas said contentions have been controverted and rebutted by cogent evidence produced by the respondent/defendant which is on record through A the statements of D.W. 1 to D.W.7 as well as documents Exh. D-4 to Exh.D-8. The judgments of the Courts below have been rendered on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and do not suffer from any misreading of the evidence.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are unexceptionable. The instant revision petition is held to be devoid of any force and is accordingly, dismissed is limine.