' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 8-2- 2002, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad, in Civil Revision Petition No,65 of 1986.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 filed Suit No,32 of 1978, seeking declaration that the respondents/plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are the exclusive owner of the suit land and Ahmed Shah had no share in the suit; that the sale-deed dated 6-7-1977 executed by respondents Nos.4 to 10 in favour of petitioners in respect of suit land is void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs and suit land and the same be recalled and cancelled; and defendants be restrained permanently from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
3. According to the averments in the plaint, 87-24 acres of land was owned by Fateh Muhammad Dars. He died in the year 1930, leaving behind three daughters, namely, Mst. Kaz Bano, Mst. Mithan and Mst. Latifan. After his death, Mst. Kaz Bano also expired leaving behind 3 legal heirs, namely, Pir Bhallan Shah, Mst. Mithan, and Mst. Latifan/respondent No,2.
4. Respondent No,6, Abdullah Shah son of Haji Piro Abro, claimed to be relative of Fateh Muhammad Dars and sold his 0-21 paisa share i.e, 0-3-4 annas to Pir Ahmed Shah son of Pir Ali Muhammad Shah, on the basis of which, Khata was mutated to that extent in favour of Pir Ahmed Shah. At that time, the suit land was under protection and management of Encumbered Estate, Hyderabad. Pir Ballah Shah and Manager, Encumbered Estate, challenged the inheritance of Abdullah and sale of land by him to Pir Ahmed Shah by filing Suit No,92 of 1937 in the Court of First Class Sub-Judge, Hyderabad, the suit was decided on special oath, by which the sale price received by Abdullah from Pir Ahmed Shah was paid by Pir Bhallah Shah to Pir Ahmed Shah, and the said land was given to Pir Bhallah Shah. Mst. Mithan and Mst. Latifan and as such judgment and decree was made. According to respondents Nos.1 to 3, thereafter, the suit land remained in possession of Pir Bhallah Shah, Mst. Mithan, and Mst. Latifan. Pir Bhallah Shah died in the year 1948, leaving behind 4 legal heirs, namely, Pir Wadi, Bibi Amira, Bibi Haoo alias Fatima, and Pir Mgook Shah. Out of the above-mentioned 4 heirs, Mst. Bibi Wadi and Mst. Bibi Amira also expired. The legal heirs of Pir Bhallah Shah, after inheritance of the suit property on the death of Pir Bhallah Shah gifted their shares to Mst, Latifan/respondent No,2, and the possession was also handed over to her. Mst. Mithan died about 25 years before the filing of the suit and left behind 2 legal heirs, Abdul Jabbar/respondent No,1 and her husband, namely, Arbab Juman Abro. Her husband expired about 4/5 years before the filing of suit, who in his lifetime had gifted his share to respondent No,l.
5. It was further alleged in the plaint that suit land remained throughout in possession of Pir Bhallah Shah and other legal heirs of Fateh Muhammad Dars, and after the death of Pir Bhallah Shah and Mst. Mithan, the possession was with respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are enjoying the produce (respondent No,3/Khabar Khan is stated to be the tenants on the land). It was further averred in the plaint that from 1937 onward, neither Pir Ahmed Shah nor his legal heirs claimed the suit property and were never in possession of the same. It was further stated in the plaint that the possession of the plaintiffs being clear, hostile and undisturbed since 1937, they also acquired the right of ownership by dint of adverse possession.
6. The plaintiffs/respondents further averred in the plaint that on the strength of Khokha Khata (fake entry in papers) in favour of Pir Ahmed Shah in the record of rights, respondents Nos.4 to 10 got the mutation in their favour as legal heirs of Pir Ahmed Shah, showing themselves as owners of the suit land. It was further averred that on the basis of Khokha Khata, respondents Nos. 4 to 10 sold the suit land to the extent of their shares 0-21 paisa in the suit land to the petitioners by registered sale-deed dated 6-7-1977. It was pleaded that the sale deed executed by respondents Nos.4 to 10, in favour of the petitioners is void, inoperative and creating no title or interest in favour of the petitioners. It was alleged that on the strength of the above void sale-deed, the defendants were trying to dispossess the plaintiffs by force and hence the suit.
7. The petitioners filed written statement, taking various pleas. The main plea was that Fateh Muhammad Dars, left three daughters only and, therefore, under Islamic Law, they could inherit 2;3 shares of the property left behind by him, while 1/3 share was inherited by his nephew Dars Abdullah Abro. According to the petitioners, his nephew inherited 21 paisas i.e, 0-3-4 Annas shares from him and sold the same to. Pir Ahmed Shah. Since then, Khata of land was existing to the extent of above share in the name of Pir Ahmed Shah, the ancestors of respondents Nos.4 to 10. They took the plea that no amount was paid by Pir Bhallah Shah to Pir Ahmed Shah, as alleged in the plaint and the entire suit land remained in the joint possession of the shareholders. Respondents Nos.4 to 10 accepted the written statement, filed by the petitioners.
8. The parties led their respective evidence. The trial Court, after framing the issues and hearing the parties, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 4-12-1982. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was heard by learned First Additional District Judge, Badin, who reversed the findings of the trial Court and accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 27-1-1986.
9. Being aggrieved with the reversal of the judgment by the Appellate Court, respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed revision petition, which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 8-2-2002 passed by the High Court. Hence, this petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned High Court failed to appreciate the evidence and the principles of law applicable in the matter; that the trial Court also erred in law and failed to adjudicate upon the legal issues; that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and facts, therefore, the petition may be accepted.
11. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely perused the material available on record. The contentions raised by the learned counsel are not tenable.
12. A perusal of the record shows that Suit No,92 of 1937 was decreed on 22-11-1939 as follows:-- ' "After a protracted trial, in which nine witnesses for defence were examined and the plaintiff was about to commence. The plaintiff No,1 gave statement agreeing to pay the defendant the price, which was actually paid on condition of his withdrawing the defence. This challenge was accepted.
The defendant No,5 stated on special oath that he paid Rs,700 to defendant No,4. Therefore, so far as the present suit is concerned, it is not necessary to decide whether Abdullah was or was not nephew of Dars because his share was sold to defendant No,5 who has withdrawn his objection to the partition of land in suit. Accordingly, there will be preliminary decree for partition of the land in suit. The plaintiff will get 0-2-8, defendant No,1,, 0-6-8 and defendant No,2, 0-6-8. Each. Party to bear his own cost. Defendant No,5 will be paid Rs,700 within a week. He can recover the amount by execution."
13. A perusal of record further shows that notice was issued to the Advocates for the parties on 11- 12-1939 to the effect that decree was framed and they should appear before the Nazir and sign the decree within three days. Thereafter preliminary decree was finally drawn on 12-12-1939 in terms of the judgment and was signed by the Judge concerned on 18-12-1939. The learned High Court allowed the appeal with sound and cogent reasons. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment, which read as under:-- ' "The record has been shown to Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.8 and 9 and after perusal of the record, he has conceded that the judgment dated 22-11-1939 was followed by the preliminary decree and that the judgment dated 22-11-1939 was acted upon and the amount of Rs,700 was paid by Pir Bhallah Shah to Pir Ahmed Shah with the result that Pir Ahmed Shah surrendered his right in favour of Pir Bhallah Shah, which he had acquired from Abdullah. The result of the above facts is that Abdullah, through whom respondents Nos.1 to 7 claimed right in the suit land is shown to have transferred his right in favour of Pir Ahmed Shah and Pir Ahmed Shah surrendered his right in favour of Pir Bhallah Shah and thus the respondents Nos.1 to 7 did not inherit the suit land and as such could not transfer the same to the respondents Nos.8 and 9.
' The impugned judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court is totally perverse and suffers from non-reading and misreading of the evidence on record and as such is not sustainable in law.
The impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is, therefore, set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby restored. The revision application is allowed."
14. In our considered view, there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence, or misconstruction of facts and law. The impugned judgment is based on the law laid down by this Court, which does not call for interference. Moreover, question of general public importance is not involved in this case.
15. For the facts and reasons stated hereinabolve, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.