' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26- 7-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No,850 of 1991 whereby the same was dismissed.
2. The background for filing the instant petition is that the petitioner instituted a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 17-5-1986 before the Civil Court at Daska pleading therein that he was entitled to inherit the entire estate measuring 12 Kanals of agricultural land belonging to the deceased Mehr Din son of Imam Din as being his sole legal heir. It was also averred that respondents Mst. Salamat Bibi and Khurshid Begum alleging them to be the daughters of the deceased Mehr Din got mutated their share to the extent of 2/3rd in connivance with one Sardar Baig Lambardar of the area. Thus, the petitioner claimed that he being the only brother of the deceased Mehr Din be declared to be his sole legal heir and that the mutation dated 21-4-1986 be also declared to be void and ineffective against his right. He also prayed for permanent injunction.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants claiming that they being the real daughters of the deceased were entitled to inherit the land to the extent of 2/3rd share and also pleaded that the mutation was rightly effected. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 15-12-1988 in favour of the petitioner. The learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings and allowed the appeal of the respondents on 30-4-1991 and dismissed the suit. The petitioner assailed the said judgment before the learned Lahore High Court in civil revision which too, was dismissed on 26-7-1999.
4. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner, Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, learned Advocate-on-Record on behalf of the respondents and have gone through the record .And proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and that of the learned Revisional Court are based on misreading and non-appraisal of evidence as such are liable to be set aside. According to him, Mst. Hassan Bibi, mother of the respondents, was married with Mehr. Din son of Ghulam Muhammad in India and the respondents were born from their wedlock in India. The said Mehr Din died in India before partition. Thereafter, she married with Mehr Din, the brother of the petitioner in India. The allotment of the land in dispute was made in favour of the petitioner and his brother Mehr Din in 1956 in lieu of their claim of the land left in India. According to the learned counsel, Mehr Din died in 1984 and before his death in 1964; Mst. Hassan Bibi had brought the suit for maintenance for herself only. Had the respondents been the daughters, from the said Mehr Khan her husband, she should have claimed the maintenance for them also which fact goes to show that they were not the daughters of Mehr Din. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondents in collusion with the Lambardar Sardar Baig got their 2/3rd share entered in the property vide abovementioned mutation in 1986 whereas remaining 1/3rd share was entered in the name of the petitioner. He referred to the statement of P.W.6 Mst. Hassan Bibi and other witnesses but failed to show that the respondents were not the daughters of Mehr Din, brother of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, learned Advocate-onRecord vehemently controverted the arguments of the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment.
7. Admittedly, the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned High Court on appraisal of the documentary as well as the oral evidence has rightly concurred that the respondents were the daughters of Mehr Din, and could not prove that the respondents were the daughters of one another Mehr Din son of Ghulam Muhammad with whom their mother, namely, Mst. Hassan Bibi had married in India. Both the learned Courts below have given much weight to the evidence adduced by the respondents being more relevant in comparison to the evidence led by the petitioner. D.W.2 Sardar Baig, Lambardar, supported the version of the respondents and testified that he was present at the time of the attestation of the abovementioned mutation of inheritance.
The learned Appellate Court has properly believed and appreciated the evidence of D.W.3 and D.W.4 Jan Muhammad son of Ilam Din who hailed from the village where the marriage of Mst.
Hassan BIbi took place with late Mehr Din son of Imam Din. The learned trial Court also believed the statement of Mst. Hassan Bibi that she did not claim the maintenance for her daughters for the reason that they were being supported by their father late Mehr Din even after her divorce. In order to strengthen the claim of the respondents, reliance has also been placed on the copies of the Nikahnamas and I.D. Cards to establish that they were the daughters of Mehr Din. To substantiate further the learned Appellate Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Rasul Bibi v. Waryam (1992 SCM R 1520) wherein it has been held that the copy of Niakahnama produced did not require production of witnesses to prove it.
8. Irrespective of above, the said mutation was attested in 'Jalsa Aam' held in the same village, wherein no one appeared claiming that the petitioner was the sole heir of late Mehr Din. The Revenue Officer also recorded the finding that 'Jalsa Aam' had verified the fact that both the respondents were the daughters of late Mehr Din and accordingly they were entitled to 2/3rd share in the estate of the deceased.
9. Admittedly, the said mutation was not challenged by the petitioner before the revenue hierarchy which was the remedy available to him according to law. Irrespective of this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment to attract interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of force and the same is dismissed.