' The appellants/plaintiffs, through the filing of the present second appeal, have called in question judgment and decree, dated 29-3-1992, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed their appeal and maintained judgment and decree, dated 10-11-1987, passed by the learned Civil Judge, through which he dismissed the suit for declaration alongwith possession, filed by the appellants.
2. Briefly stated the facts, as discernible from the record of the case, are that one Abdul Aziz, son of Ghulam Qadir, owner of certain land, died in India, in the year 1936, survived by (i) Mst. Paras Bibi (mother), (ii) Mst. Hameedan (sister), (iii) Mst. Kalsooman (widow), (iv) Wakeel Muhammad (son) and (v) Mst. Wakeelan (daughter), whereupon Mst. Kalsooman acquired the status of "limited owner" according to the customary law, who died during the riots. The estate left by Abdul Aziz Was verified against a claim and in lieu thereof land measuring 603 Kanals, 12 Marlas was given in Tehsil Hafizabad. On 18-9-1952 NaibTehsildar, Hafizabad/Revenue Officer attested inheritance Mutation No,5/3 (Exh.P.9) of Mst. Kalsooman in favour of:--
(i) Mst. Paras (mother) 1/3rd
(ii) Mst. Hameedan (sister) 1/2nd
(iii) Muhammad Latif, Muhammad Sadique Sirjeed, Majid1/6th ' Later on the aforenoted Mst. Hameedan died and inheritance Mutation No,8/3 (Exh.P.10) was sanctioned by Tehsildar, Hafizabad on 21-5-1955, whereby 1/3rd of her estate was mutated in favour of Mst. Paras and the remaining 2/3rd in favour of Muhammad Latif etc. Mst. Wakeelan, the predecessor-in-interest of appellants Nos.1 and 2, died on 28-12-1961. Mst. Paras subsequently, gifted her property in favour of Mst. Aasia and Mst. Bashiree, vide gift-deed, dated 12-5-1959 and then the gifted property was purchased by the present respondents. Mst. Paras died on 1-8-1966.
3. In the above back-drop, the appellants Nos.1 and 2 challenged the aforenoted proceedings by way of filing an appeal before the D.S. And R.C./Collector, but the same was dismissed on 18-8- 1972. The revision petition, filed by them was also dismissed on 30-11-1972 by the Settlement- Commissioner (Lands). On 8-5-1975 Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,281/R of 1973) was also dismissed by this Court. C.P.S.L.A. No,695 of 1975 was also disposed of by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on 10-11-1980, however, allowing the appellants to "re-agitate his case before the competent Authority on the basis of the provisions of para. 67 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, if the law so permits".
' Having finalized the matter on this front, the appellant No,3 statedly filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, which was, however, dismissed on 23-10- 1979 with the observations that he may approach the Civil Courts.
4. In the above ground, the appellants on 10-1-1980 filed a suit, for declaration with consequential relief of joint possession, against the respondents, who contested the suit, by way of filing the written statement, on legal and factual plans. The learned trial Court, out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file this suit by their words and conduct? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(4) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is incompetent in its present form? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD
(7) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs, if so, in what amount? OPD
(8) Whether the Mutations Nos.5/3 and 8/3 are illegal, void, against the law and facts and ineffective against the plaintiffs rights, moreso, these were attested without lawful authority? OPP
(9) Whether the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Aziz, Hameedan, Wakeelan and Kalsooman? OPP
(10) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for? OPP (10-A) Whether The plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession of the suit land? OPP
(11) Relief.
' The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, proceeded to dismiss the suit, vide judgment and decree, dated 10-11-1987. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal, but without any success as their appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 29-3-1992, hence the present second appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the findings, rendered by both the Courts below, are contrary to the record of the case, inasmuch as the issue regarding the res judicata and the question of inheritance of the appellants have erroneously been decide'. He has further submitted that the ultimate jurisdiction vests with the Civil Court, even if the same is barred under any other law. He has added that both the Courts have misread the evidence on record.
Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting both the judgments, has categorically asserted that it has been proved on record that the appellants are not the legal heirs of Mst. Wakeelan inasmuch as both the Courts have decided Issue No,9 against the appellants, thus, they could not challenge the Mutations Nos.513 and 8/3 and the question of asking for possession does not arise under the circumstances.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon the examination of the record of the case, to my mind, the most crucial and significant issue in the entire controversy is Issue No,9, which is to the effect, as to whether the appellants/plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Mst. Wakeelan, the alleged daughter of Abdul Aziz, the onus of which was rightly placed upon the plaintiffs. If the appellants are able to prove the said issue and are able to establish that Mst. Wakeelan was the daughter of Abdul Aziz, in that case they can proceed with the rest of the case otherwise not. The learned lower Appellate Court has rightly decided the said issue, in the first instance, as according to the learned Court the entire controversy hinges upon the said factual question. I feel that the learned Court proceeded in the right direction. Both the Courts below, while deciding Issue No,9, have exhaustively embarked upon every aspect of the case, appreciated the evidence on record in its true perspective and have reached to the proper conclusions, which, to my mind, are not open to exception, thus, the same are confirmed. Both the Courts, specially the learned Additional District Judge, have, in detail, discussed each and every witness and document on record and rightly held that the appellants failed to prove that Mst. Wakeelan was the daughter of Abdul Aziz, deceased. I have also examined the evidence on record and find that in order to prove their case the entire thrust of the appellants was on the statement of Muhammad Iqbal, P.W.1, who is appellant No,1, and on the death certificate (Exh.P.1), showing the death entry of Mst. Wakeelan. The learned Additional District Judge has properly and legally considered the said evidence and while discussing the relevant piece of evidence, came to the conclusion that the statement of P.W.1, remains uncorroborated. Additionally, P.W.1 is an interested witness, being one of the appellants and cannot be believed without corroborative piece of evidence. I have also perused the evidence on record in juxtaposition with the findings given by the learned lower Appellate Court and is of the view that inferences drawn by the learned Additional District Judge are in accordance with the evidence on record. The findings, rendered by the lower Appellate Court, are not only in accordance with the record of the case but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject.
7. So far as the findings on the rest of the issues, after having examined both the judgments and the record of the case, I am of the view that the findings rendered by the learned Additional District Judge are legal, unexceptionable, and do not call for any interference by this Court, thus, the findings rendered by the learned Additional District Judge on all the issues are maintained.
8. It is settled law that second appeal lies only on the grounds mentioned in section 100, C.P.C. And not on question of facts. The learned counsel has not been able to show that how his second appeal falls within any of the grounds mentioned in section 100, C.P.C. No error of law has been committed by both the Courts below while arriving at concurrent findings of fact.
9. I have examined the judgments rendered by both the Courts below and is of the view that the same do not call for any interference by this Court at the stage of second appeal. It is settled law that the concurrent findings of fact are not liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction conferred on it under section 100, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Ghani v.
Muhammad Akhtar 1988 SCM R 801, Muhammad Shafi and another v. Sher Ali 1970 SCM R 510, Maran Bepari v. Madan Gopal and 4 others PLD 1969 SC 617 and Tassawar Shah and others v.. Mst.
Sadiqan and others 2001 CLC 1698.
10. Seeing from any angle, the appellants have failed to make out any case justifying the interference, in both the judgments, by this Court in this second appeal, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in both the judgments, which are concurrent in nature.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is devoid of any merits, thus, the same is dismissed, leaving the 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.