On Nadir was, owner of the suit land, situated in Chak No,393/G.B., Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad. He died leaving behind a widow and daughter Mst. Aamina. Under the customary law, his estate devolved upon his widow but, on her remarriage, the land was mutated in favour of Mst.
Amina as limited owner, vide Mutation No,67, dated 17-10-1965. Mst. Aamina mortgaged this land in favour of Muhammad Hussain Bahadri claiming reversionary right, filed a suit fr,r determination challenging the mortgage made by Mst. Amina, which were decreed in his favour on 31-3-1973 to the extent of 1/2 while, Aamina was found to be entitled to inheritance under the Muhammadan Law, to the extent of other half, Bahadri challenged this judgment and decree in appeal and the learned Appellate Court on 16-9-1975 reversed the same finding that Aamina was not even entitled to 1/2 of the share. This decree was not challenged any further.
2. During the pendency of this litigation Aamina sold. the land in favour of Fazal, her son, on 26-4- 1967. Thereafter, Fazal sold the land in favour of the present petitioner on 7-5-1967. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration in the, year 1976, claiming declaration being owners in possession of the suit-land. This was contested by the respondents and the suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 17-2-1993, holding that in the earlier litigation Aamina was found not entitled to any right in the suit property and the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge dated .16-9-1975, having not been challenged any further, became final and conclusive. The petitioners as derive their titled from Aamina, judgment and decree above operate as res judicata. The petitioners challenged this in appeal but, without any success, which was dismissed on 16-1-1996.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in earlier round of litigation, question involved was whether Aamina could mortgage the property. But she subsequently got the property redeemed and have sold the same in favour of Fazal, from whom the present petitioners have purchased, thus, the issue involved in the previous litigation was not directly and substantially as issue in the present matter, attracting the provisions of section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In this behalf learned counsel has relied upon 1967 SCMR 559 and 1944 AIR ??? 282. Conversely leaned counsel for the respondents stated that in earlier litigation in which the respondents were plaintiffs, issue was whether the plaintiff are owners of the land, which issue has been conclusive determined and decided in their favour vide judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 16-9-1975, which was not challenged any further. Therefore, the same issue, cannot be reopened and the present suit by the petitioners was barred by res judiCata as they claim their title through Mst. Aamina against whom the said decree was passed.
4. Arguments have been heard. Admittedly in the previous litigation, the issue involved was whether Mst. Aamina is the full owner of the land, this issue was decided against her, vide judgment and decree finally passed by the learned District Judge on 16-9-1975, the sale in favour of the present petitioners was made during the pendency of the earlier litigation and, thus, besides, the transaction was void on account of principle of lis pendens. Earlier judgments and decree also operates as res judicata against the petitioners to claim that Aamina was owner of 1/2 share in the said property, which could be validly transferred by her in favour of her son Fazal, from whom the petitioners have purchased the same. The judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on their own facts and have no relevance to the instant matter.
5. Upshot of the above is that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity, calling for interference in any revisional jurisdiction. .This petitioner, thus, has no force and is dismissal accordingly.