This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-5-1986 passed by Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur by virtue of which the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 25-11-1982 was maintained. The petitioners brought a suit on 13-3-1978 seeking declaration that the plaintiffs were the legal heirs of Allah Bakhsh son of Allah Wasaya deceased and the defendants Mst. Karim Khatoon and Mst.
Manzoor Bibi were not the legal heirs of Allah Bakhsh and thus had no right of inheritance in his estate. The plaintiffs denied that Allah Bakhsh had married Mst. Karim Khatoon or that Mst. Manzoor Bibi was his daughter. It was alleged that Mst. Manzoor Bibi was the daughter of Faqir Bakhsh the previous husband of Mst. Karim Khatoon.
2. The suit was contested by respondents Nos, 3 and 4 who vehemently asserted that Mst. Karim Khatoon was the legally wedded wife of Allah Bakhsh deceased and that Mst. Manzoor Bibi was the daughter of said Allah Bakhsh deceased. Respondents Nos, 1 and 2, however, conceded the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- Issues
(1) Whether the parentage of defendant No,4 has been correctly described and she being minor has not been sued in accordance with law, if so its effect?
(2) Whether the suit is collusive with defendants Nos, 1 and 2, if so, its effect? OPD
(3) Whether Abdul Hakim son of Bachoo is non-existent and thus suit is bad? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action against defendants Nos, 3 and 4, If, so, its effect?
OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are owner with possession of the suit-land as described in the headnote of plaint?
(6) Whether the Mutation No,646, dated 7-2-1980 is illegal, void and against the law of Sharayat?
OPP
(7) Relief.
4. The learned Trial Court after recording oral and documentary evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the petitioners with costs vide judgment and decree dated 25-11-1982. that the learned Trial Court dealt with Issues Nos, 5 and 6 in the light of evidence on the records and came to the conclusion that the petitioners have not been able to discharge the onus of issues Nos,. 5 and 6 place on them. While coming to this conclusion the learned Trial Court considered the effect of the oral evidence of four witnesses produced, on behalf of the petitioners as also the effect of the documentary evidence produced by them. The evidence produced by respondents Nos, 3 and 4 both oral and documentary was also fully perused. Placing the evidence of the parties in juxtaposition the learned Trial Court found that the petitioners/plaintiffs have not been able to produce such evidence which could persuad the Trial Court to hold that Mst. Karim Khatoon was not a legally wedded wife of Allah Bakhsh and Mst. Manzoor Bibi was not his daughter. The findings of Issues Nos, 1, 2, 3 and 4 followed the findings of Issues Nos, 5 and 6.
5. In appeal filed by the petitioners, the learned Appellate Court examined the evidence on the record once again and concurred with the findings of fact of the Trial Court upon. Issues Nos, 5 and
6. While doing so, the effect of the oral evidence as well as the documents such as Exh.D.l Nikah Nama Exh.D.2 the original divorce deed dated 29-6-1967 Exh.D.3, certified copy of order dated 2-7- 1978 passed by Judge Family Court and Exh.D.4 a certified copy of form issued under National Registration Act, 1973 was examined. The objections of the petitioners against the said evidence was also noted by the learned First Appellate Court. The. Lower Appellate Court also appreciated that the statement of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 was mostly based upon hearsay and there was no concrete evidence produced by the petitioners to prove rather strong allegation against respondents Nos, 3 and 4. The effect of non-production of Faqir Bakhsh as a witness who was alive was also taken into account.
6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner once again endeavoured to put under scrutiny the evidence of respondents Nos, 3 and 4 and contended that the Nikah Nama, the divorce deed and the form were forged and fake documents. All these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners were directed against the nature and effect of, the oral and documentary evidence produced by respondents Nos, 3 and 4. While doing so the learned counsel over looked the limited jurisdiction which a Court can exercise in revision. After going through the entire evidence on the record it is found that the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the judgment of the First Appellate Court is based upon a correct appreciation of the preponderance of evidence produced by the respondent. The onus of Issues Nos, 5 and 6 was upon the petitioners. The petitioners have not been able to show any evidence which might have been ignored or misread by the Courts below.
The finding of fact being, concurrent and no legal infirmity having been pointed out in the judgment and decrees of the two lower Courts. This civil revision is without merit and is hereby dismissed Parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.