' This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3-4-1997, passed by Additional District Judge, Narowal, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1993 whereby the suit instituted by Mst. Naziran Bibi, petitioner herein, for declaration was dismissed.
2. On the death of .One Muhammad Ramzan, Mutation of Inheritance No,3481 was attested on 23- 4-1984 in favor of Mst. Allah Rakhi etc.; respondents herein. This mutation was challenged by Mst.
Naziran Bibi petitioner before the Collector on the ground that the same has been attested in her absence and she is entitled to inherit the property left by Muhammad Ramzan being his daughter.
The Collector vide his order dated 21-9-1985 observed that the matter pertains to determination of title between the parties, therefore, the petitioner may seek remedy before the Civil Court.
Consequently, a suit for perpetual injunction was filed by petitioner Mst. Naziran Bibi against Mst.
Allah Rakhi etc., respondents. The suit was resisted by the respondents. It was asserted that Mst.
Naziran Bibi is not the daughter of Muhammad Ramzan.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial Court:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD.
(2) Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs, if so, to what extent? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP.
(4) Relief.
' In the first round of litigation, the learned trial Court on 18-10-1989 on the basis of special oath on Holy Quran decreed the suit of the petitioner. The appeal filed by Mst. Allah Rakhi etc., was accepted by the learned District Judge, Narowal and the case was remanded by him vide judgment and decree dated 21-7-1991 with a direction to the trial Court that it should be decided after recording evidence of the parties afresh in accordance with law. The trial Court, thereafter, recorded the evidence and through judgment and decree dated 31-7-1993 dismissed the suit of Mst. Naziran Bibi. Being aggrieved by this decree dated 31-7-1993 she filed an appeal, the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal on 3-4-1997.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this revision petition contends that the petitioner's statement on oath recorded in earlier round of litigation should have been accepted by the trial Court.
This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted because the decree awarded in favor of the petitioner on 18-10-1989 was set aside by the First Appellate Court and the case was remanded. The order dated 18-10-1989 has merged in the remand order and the same is not in field. The learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Additional District Judge has observed that there is bald statement of Mst. Sardaran Bibi P.W.3 which is not corroborated by any evidence on the record.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that Mst. Naziran Bibi has not appeared in support of her plaint and the plaint is not the substitute of evidence.
' There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that without appearance of Mst. Naziran Bibi in this case to claim that she is daughter of Muhammad Ramzan the decree could have not been awarded in favor of the petitioner. The onus of proving that petitioner Mst. Nazian Bibi is the daughter of Muhammad Ramzan was on her, which she has failed to discharge. The verbal assertion of the petitioner in the plaint has been denied by the respondents. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below of competent jurisdiction that the petitioner has failed to substantiate her claim that she is daughter of Muhammad Ramzan. In this view of the matter, there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, no exception can be taken to the judgments of both the Courts below.
' Resultantly, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs.