GHULAM RASUL Versus GHULAM AHMED
I propose to decide Criminal Appeals, No.983 and 984 of 1991 as a common question of law and fact is involved in these civil revisions by the following judgment.
2. The fact to giving rise to this petition are that plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit on 3‑7‑1982 against Ghulam Rasool deceased and 14 others for declaration that plaintiffs were the owners of land measuring 51 Kanals, 18 Marlas in Khata No.247 situate in Chak No.74 J.B. Tehsil and District, Faisalabad and the respondents had no title or interest in the aforesaid land. It was averred in the plaint that Karim Bux propositus, was owner of 51 Kanals and 18 Marlas in Chak No.74 LB. He died issueless in the year 1977 and was survived by his widow, Hajra Bibi. His Mutation of Inheritance No.725 was attested on 16‑1‑1978 and the entire land was mutated in her name. An appeal was filed before the Collector against the said mutation which was dismissed on 19‑4‑1979. The petitioners filed a revision petition which was accepted and the case was remanded. On remand Mutation No.798 was sanctioned by AC‑II on 7‑9‑1980. Mst. Hajra Bibi widow was given 1/4th share and 1/2 share was given to Mst. Salamate as sister. Rest of the land i.e. 1/4th was mutated in the names of the petitioners collaterals. The appeals filed against the said mutation were dismissed ‑by the Collector on 3‑11‑1981.
The petitioners also filed a suit for declaration on 1‑12‑1982 to the effect that Mst. Salamate, the mother of the defendants was not the sister of Karim Bux deceased and consequently was not entitled to any share in the inheritance of Karim Bux, Ghulam Rasool etc. (petitioner) were entitled to 3/4th share of inheritance of Karim Bux. Both the suits were consolidated.
3. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:‑
(1) Whether the suit of Ghulam Rasul etc. cannot proceed in its present form? OPD
(2) Whether Ghulam Rasul etc. lack cause of action and locus standi? OPP.
(3) Whether the suit of Ghulam Rasul etc. is in‑collectly valued for the purpose of Court‑fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPP.
(4) Whether the suit of Ghulam Rasul etc. is frivolous, as such, the defendants Ghulam Ahmad and Abdul Sattar are entitled to special costs? OPP.
(5) Whether Mst. Salamate, the mother of defendants Ghulam Ahmad and Abdul Sattar was not the sister of Karim Bux deceased, as such Mutation No.798 dated 7‑9‑1980 to the, extent of 1/2 share given to Mst. Salamate is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs Ghulam Rasool etc.? OPD
(6) If Issues No.6 not proved whether Ghulam Ahmad etc. plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory decree that the orders dated 7‑9‑1980 and 3‑11‑1980 are illegal, void, against facts and law to the extent that defendants/plaintiffs Ghulam Rasul etc. were not eligible and entitled to inherit from Karim Bux deceased; as his heirs, as such, the plaintiffs Ghulam Ahmad etc. are entitled to inherit the suit‑laud, and the injunction sought for? OPP
(7) Relief.
The learned trial Court vide consolidated judgment dated 7‑3‑1987 decreed the suit titled Ghulam Rasool etc. v. Ghulam Ahmad etc. and dismissed the suit titled Ghulam Ahmad etc. v. Ghulam Rasool etc. Two appeals were 'filed before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge who vide judgment dated 4‑4‑1991 accepted the appeals and reversed the decree passed by the learned trial Court. The suit filed by the petitioners Ghulam Rasool and others v. Ghulam Ahmad etc. was dismissed and the suit titled Ghulam Ahmad etc v. Ghulam Rasool etc. was decreed. Mutation No.798 was declared to have been lawfully sanctioned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Additional District Judge has ignored the evidence on record. He referred to the statement of Mst. Hajra Bibi, P.W.1 the wife of Karim Bux wherein she admitted that she did not know the father of Mst. Salamate meaning thereby that she did not know the name of her father‑in‑law. She also admitted when she appeared before AC‑II on 6‑2‑1972, that she was the sole heir of Karim Bux. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the documents Exh.D/2 and Exh.D/3 have not been taken into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment.
5. I stave gone through the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and find that he has dealt with issue No.5 in detail and held that Mst. Salamate was the sister of Karim Bux deceased as such entitled to inherit from him. To support the relationship of Mst. Salamate with Karim Bux, deceased Mst. Hajra widow of Karim Bux appeared as P W 1 and stated that Mst. Salamate was the sister of deceased Karim Bux. Similarly, Muhammad Nazir, P.W.2 deposed that Karim Bux, deceased was his brother‑in‑law ( ﻰﺋﻮﻧﻬﺒ ) and that Mst. Salamate was the only sister of Karim Bux P.W.3 Muhammad Rasheed deposed that he was the Lamberdar before partition of the Sub continent of Chak Khanpur and Karim Bux owned land in Khanpur. He further deposed that Karim Bux had only one sister, Mst. Salamate. P.W.4 and P.W.5 deposed to the same effect. In this view of the matter the relationship of Mst. Salamate with Karim Bux, deceased is proved on record. Exh.P.2 the claim Form for obtaining land on temporary basis submitted by Karim Bux also mentions the name of Mst. Salamate as member of his family. Exh.P.3 the temporary allotment also shows that the name of Salamate as sister of Karim Bux. Exh. P.2 is incomplete document and Exh.D.3 does not support the case of the petitioners. In this view of the above cogent evidence the case of the respondents is proved to the hilt. Even otherwise this issue being a question of fact cannot be gone into while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. No misreading or non‑reading has been pointed out before this Court. I find no flaw in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
6. For what has been stated above these petitioners have no merit and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
H.B.T/G‑137/L Revision dismissed.