This civil revision assails judgment and decree dated 17.12.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby the appeal of the Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 was accepted and judgment and decree dated 18.12.1995 of the trial Court, was reversed and their suit was decreed.
2. A short factual background of the case is that respondents Nos, 1 and 2 filed a suit challenging mutation of inheritance dated 14.4.1964 sanctioned on death of Qutab Shah, their grand-father. In this suit, sale-deeds and mutation on the basis thereof, attested in favour of Respondents Nos, 5 to 9 were also challenged First sale-deed was dated 7.5.1973 transferring 63 Kanals 16 Marlas of land and on the basis of it, Mutation No, 289 was sanctioned on 7.5.1973. The other sale-deed is dated 27,7.1978, transferring 63 Kanals 10 Marlas of land^ on the basis of which Mutation No, 337 dated 10.1.1980 was sanctioned Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 pleaded in their plaint that their paternal grand father. Quttab shah had two wives one Mst. Jannat Bibi and other Mst. Suban Qutab Shah, according to Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 had three sons from the womb of Mst. Jannat Bibi, namely, Mumtaz Hussain, Khurshid Ahmad and Manzoor Hussain. Out of these, Manzoor Hussain is father of Respondents Nos, 1 and 2. From other wife, Qutab Shah had one son Talib. Hussain and two daughters namely, Mst. Shahzadi and Mst. Khurshid Bibi. Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 claimed that at the time of sanctioning of inheritance mutation of Qutab Shah, his son Manzoor Hussain had died, but in view of Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which was promulgated before the Death of Qutab Shah, they were entitled to inherit share of their father, being daughter of a pre- deceased son. They asserted that sanctioning of inheritance Mutation No, 178 dated 14.4.1964, distributing estate of deceased Qutab Shah is void, illegal and inoperative qua their rights and consequently sale transactions as mentioned above, are also void because vendors of those drove their title from Mutation No, 178, above referred.
3. The petitioners, who were purchasers of land from Respondents Nos, 3 and 4 inherited by them from late Qutab Shah vide mutation in dispute, being defendants in the suit, controverted the assertions of Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 and denied contents of the plaint, by asserting that Manzoor Hussain was not son of. Qutab Shah, as he was already born when Mst. Jannat Bibi married with Qutab Shah. They have narrated some story of marriage of Mst. Jannat Bibi with Qutab Shah, in their written statement but it is not much relevant to the controversy involved in this cae, hence, is not being reproduced, here. Controversial pleadings of the parties, necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence whereafter the learned trial Judge who was seized of the matter, on the basis of his appraisal of evidence vide his judgment and decree dated 18.12.1995 dismissed the suit of Respondents Nos, 1 and 2.
4. Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 feeling aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court dated 18.12.1995 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, where they succeeded as their appeal was accepted and their suit was decreed granting them a share in the estate of late Qutab Shah vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.1997. The petitioners came up in revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging appellate judgment and decree. The revision petition was admitted to regular hearing and has now been taken up for final hearing. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of sanctioning of mutation of Inheritance No, 178 dated 14.4.1964, the revenue officer conducted a detailed inquiry, after recording of evidence and held that Manzoor Hussain is not son of the deceased Qutab. Shah. According to him, this was a material piece of evidence showing that Manzoor Hussain being not son of the propositus, Respondents Nos, 1 No, 2 who claimed themselves to be his daughters, were not entitled to inherit any thing. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Mst Jannat Bibi did appear before the revenue officer during the inquiry and made a statement but did not claim Manzoor Hussain her son from Qutab Shah, as such, appellate Court was not justified in granting Respondents No, 1 and 2 decree, treating their father as son of Qutab Shah. Learned counsel further elaborates his arguments by relying on Ex. P. 3 which is a death entry of Manzoor Hussain and contended that Manzoor Hussain is recorded in this document, to have died at the age of 30 years on 8.9.1956 and if we go 30 years back, it shows that he was born in the year, 1926 whereas Mst.
Jannat Bibi stated before the revenue officer that she was married to Qutab Shah in the year 1934.
This fact, according to him, makes it clear that Manzoor Hussain was already born before the marriage of deceased Qutab Shah and Mst. Jamat Bibi. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that birth entries of Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 show that they were born in the years 1954-56, respectively, whereas their father died on 8.9.1956 and these documents created a doubt with regard to their paternity. It is claimed that Mst. Jannat Bibi died in the year 1982 but did not challenge the inheritance mutation and had Manzoor Hussain been real son of Qutab Shah, she must have challenged this mutation, excluding her son from his heriditory rights. A reference to statement of Manzoor Hussain was also made wherein he could not tell, where abouts of his mother or date of her death.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 refuted the submissions of the petitioners and supported the appellate judgment, impugned herein an urged that there is documentary evidence on the file showing that Manzoor Hussain was son of Qutab Shah and this evidence has rightly been relied by the appellate Court to conclude that Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 were daughters of son of Qutab Shah, entitled to inherit estate of the propositus. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no doubt it is proved on the record that Manzoor Hussain died in the life time of Qutab Shah, his father, but he died in the year, 1963 when Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, had been added whereunder Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 were given right of inheritance, being daughters, of a pre-deceased son but their this right was erroneously ignored. According to learned counsel for the respondents, revenue officer himself drawn pedigree table on Mutation No, 178 dated 14.4.1964 showing than Manzoor Hussain son of Qutab Shah but inspite of it passed an erroneous order sanctioning the mutation against the interest of Respondents Nos, 1 and 2.
7. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. No doubt revenue officer at the time of sanctioning of Mutation No, 178 dated 14.4.1964 conducted a detailed injury recorded evidence, including statement of Mst. Jannat Bibi. she categorically claimed that Manzoor Hussain is her son and was born after 15/16 years of her marriage. This fact has been noted by the revenue officer in his order dated 27.8.1963 during the course of inquiry above referred (Ex. P.I). The revenue officer has drawn a pedigree table on the back of Mutation No, 178 and has shown Manzoor Hussain as a son of Qutab Shah from the womb of Mst. Jannat Bibi. Ex. P.3, is death entry of Manzoor Hussain, showing his death on 8.9.1956. In this document, Manzoor Hussain is shown as son of Qutab Shah son of Ulfat Shah. Ex. P.4 is birth entry of Mst. Shah Jehan, Respondent No, 1, which also contains an entry regarding parentage of Respondent No, 1 as Manzoor Hussain son of Qutab Shah. Ex. P.5 is birth entry of Mst. Najma Parveen, Respondent No, 2, it also contains similar entry as Ex. P.4 Ex. P. 6 is death certificate of Mst. Jannat Bibi and it shows that she was wife of Qutab Shah son of Ulfat Shah showing her death on 12.3.1978. All these documents show that Manzoor Hussain was a son of Qutab Shah. In presence of these documents, findings by revenue officer, during the course of proceedings, sanctioning of Mutation No, 178 which were summary in nature, have no legal value.
Revenue Officer should not have, embarked upon determination of any complicated question of rights of inheritance, in summary proceedings and should have left it out for determination by the Civil Courts. My this view gets support from the judgments in the cases of Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others vs. Khan Bahadur through legal heirs (1992 SCMR 2334). Aurang Zaib vs. M/s. Al-Haider Construction Company through Managing Partner and 4 others (PLD 1993 Karachi 397). Ghous Bux vs. Altaf Hussain and others (PLD 1993 Karachi 410), Mst. Gul Pari alias Gulbaro vs. Zarin Khan and others (PLD 1994 Peshawar 249) and Muhammad Younis and another vs. Mst. Inayat Begum (1984 CLC 3279). The Revenue Officer himself, as noted above, while drawing pedigree table, mentioned Manzoor Hussain as son of Qutab Shah. Statement of Mst. Jannat Bibi is also corroborative of these assertions of Respondents Nos, 1 and 2.
8. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Ex. P.3 that Manzoor Hussain was born in 1926 whereas Qutab Shah married with Mst. Jannat Bibi in 1934 has no legs to stand because age mentioned in Ex. P.3 is not authentic and is not corroborated from any other evidence on the file. Likewise, I also do not see an eye to eye with the submissions that on account of non- challenging mutation by Mst. Jannat Bibi in her life till 1982 debars the Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 from claiming their share in inheritance of their father which vested in them, the moment the propositus died, as held in the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1). Even otherwise Ex. P.6 shows that Mst. Jannat Bibi died on 12.3.1978 and not in 1982. Document Ex. D4 showing death of Mst. Jannat Bibi in the year, 1982 is riot reliable, for the reasons detailed by the appellate Court. Above all, Ghulam Farid, Defendant No, 5, appeared as DW.1 and made a statement on behalf of the petitioners. During cross-examination adhiitted that Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 are descendant of Qutab Shah and they lived in the same village. This admission of one of the petitioners/defendants leave no room to conclude otherwise than that Manzoor Hussain was in fact a son of Qutab Shah from the womb of Mst. Jannat Bibi,
9. Ex. P. 3 proves death of Manzoor Hussain on 8.9.1956 and Ex. P.2. shows death of Qutab Shah on 2.5.1963, meaning thereby that Manzoor Hussain died in the life time of his father Qutab Shah Ex. P.4 and P. 5 prove that Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 are daughters of Manzoor Hussain son of Qutab Shah and this fact is also not seriously contested by the petitioners. Section 4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, had become part of the statute by that time. This provision of law giving right to daughters of a pre-deceased son of a propositus, was examined by the Hon'ble Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Allah Rakha and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2000 FSC 1) and it was held that these provisions are not' contrary to injunctions of Islam. In another case Muhammad Ali and others vs. Muhammad Ramzan and others (2002 SCMR 426) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that provisions of Section 4 of Ordinance, 1961 are still effective and are part of the statute Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 were entitled to inherit share of their father, going to him from the estate of Qutab Shah, his father but they were erroneously excluded, their shares comes to 14/80 and has rightly been granted by the First Appellate Court while granting them a decree as prayed, through a well reasoned judgment, returned after proper scane of evidence on the file.
10. For what has been discussed above, it is proved that appellate Court has passed a rightful judgment, which is in consonance with the evidence on the file and has committed no illegality or irregularity. No part of the record has been shown to have been misread or non-read, in absence of which no interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court is permissible, under law. This revision petition has no merit in it and is, accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.