Briefly stated the facts are that Nabbi Bux was owner of land described fully in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiff/petitioner claims himself to be son of said Nabbi Bux. He further claims that Manzoor Ahmed defendant/respondent is also son of Nabbi Bux. Nabbi Bux is stated to have died in 1971, as a result thereof mutation of Inheritance No.8785, dated 24-7-1976 was attested in favour of defendant/respondent only and the plaintiff/petitioner was deprived of his share in the estate. The plaintiff/petitioner claims that he is son of Nabbi Bux out of her mother Mst. Mehr Mai who after seeking divorce from Nabbi Bux had contracted marriage with Karim Bux. He further contends that as he was brought up by Karim Bux, so he has been shown to be son of Kasim Bux whereas actually he is son of Nabbi Bux. He challenges the Mutation No.8785, dated 24-7-1976 to be illegal and void upon his rights as he has been deprived of his due share in the inheritance of Nabbi Bux deceased.
He requested the defendant/respondent to treat Mutation No.8785, dated 24-7-1976 to be ineffective upon his rights, but as his request was not accepted, hence he filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is son of Nabbi Bux and is entitled to the inheritance in equal share with his brother Manzoor Ahmed defendant/respondent. The suit was resisted by Manzoor Ahmed who raised various preliminary objections and controverted the stand of the plaintiff/petitioner on merits. He categorically stated that the plaintiff/petitioner is not son of Nabbi Bux and is the result of wedlock of his mother Mst. Mehr Mai with Karim Bux. He thus prayed that the suit be dismissed.
2. From the divergent pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Is the suit not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(2) Is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD
(3) Is the plaintiff estopped to file the present suit? OPD
(4) Is the suit barred by time? OPD
(5) Is the plaintiff real son of Nabbi Bux deceased and the Mutation No.8785 attested on 24-7-1976 is illegal, void and ineffective upon the plaintiff's rights of inheritance? OPP '
(6) Relief.
3. In support of his stand the plaintiff/petitioner examined Mst. Mehr Mai P.W.1, Karim Bux P.W.2, Ghulam Farid P. W.3 and Shah Muhammad P. W.4 and examined himself as P.W.5. In rebuttal the defendant/respondent examined Mehmood D.W.1, Muhammad Aslam D.W.2 and Manzoor Ahmed defendant/respondent appeared himself as D.W.1 His learned counsel also produced documents Exhs.D.1 to D.4 on, 26-11-1979. .
4. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent vide judgment and decree dated 8-3-1980. The defendant/respondent felt aggrieved of the same and tiled an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, who vide his judgment and decree dated 2-3-1986 reversed the findings of the lower Court. The plaintiff/petitioner has felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree dated 2-3-1986 and filed the instant civil revision.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that to prove his parantage the plaintiff/petitioner has examined his mother Mst. Mehr Mai as P.W.1 who has categorically stated that he (plaintiff/petitioner) was born out of her wedlock with Nabbi Bux. She has further stated that as the plaintiff was of tender age and was brought up by Karim Bux so it is out of love and affection that plaintiff/petitioner has been described as son of Karim Bux: He further contended that this fact has further been conceded by Karim Bux who has been examined as P. W .2. He further argued that mere fact that domicile certificate has been issued showing the plaintiff/petitioner to be son of Karim Bux will not make any 'difference as the touchstone to determine the parenthood of a child is the statement of his mother and in the instant case she has categorically stated that plaintiff/petitioner is her son out of her wedlock with Nabbi Bux. He thus submits that trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit while the Appellate Court has not passed the impugned judgment and decree in accordance with law.
7. Conversely the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court has been supported by the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent.
8. The only point which requires determination is if the plaintiff/petitioner is the 'son of Nabbi Bux or Karim Bux? To prove his stand, the plaintiff/petitioner has examined Mst. Mehr Mai and Karim Bux as P. Ws. 1 and 2. He has also examined Ghulam Farid P. W.3 who is a real brother of Karim Bux P. W.2.
He has also brought on record the statement of Shah Muhammad P.W.4 besides examining himself-as P.W.5. All these P. Ws. Have tried to prove that the plaintiff/petitioner is son of Nabbi Bux.
To rebut his stand, the defendant/respondent has not only brought oral evidence in the form of statements of D. Ws 1 to 3, but has also brought on record documents Exhs.D.1 to D.4.
9. There is no doubt that plaintiff/petitioner has examined Mst. Mehr Mai as well as Karim Bux as P.
Ws. 1 and 2 and they have claimed that plaintiff/petitioner is son of Nabbi Bux. However, their oral testimony looses its force when the same is compared with the, oral evidence of defendant/respondent which has come in the shape of statements of D. Ws. 1 to 3 and the documentary evidence to be discussed shortly. The defendant/respondent has brought on record copy of Nikahnama of Mst. Mehr Mai with Karim Bux Exh.D.1, dated 23-6-1957. He has also brought on record school leaving certificate of the plaintiff/petitioner . Exh.D.2 showing his date of birth as 15-12-1958. He has also brought on record copy of domicile certificate Exh.D.3 issued on 3-12-1977 showing the plaintiff/petitioner to be son of Karim Bux. Besides these documents the defendant/respondent has also bought on record particulars of examinations Exh.D.4 which relate to different examinations undertaken by the plaintiff/petitioner showing himself to be son of Karim Bux. In the light of this overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence, the oral testimony of Mst. Mehr Mai has rightly been disbelieved by the Appellate Court and that too keeping in view her own character which need riot be discussed at this juncture as the same has been thoroughly discussed in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court.
10. The upshot of above discussion is that the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to establish that he is son of Nabbi Bux and Appellate Court has returned its findings after discussing, analysing and scanning the evidence of the parties in its true perspective. There is no misreading, non-reading of any evidence on the part of Appellate Court. Consequently civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.