GUL KANJEER KHAN and others Versus Subedar UMER KHATAB
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, J.--- Leave to appeal has been sought for by the petitioners through these two petitions from the consolidated judgment, dated 16-5-2002 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in R.S.As. Nos.112 and 113 of 1983, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the consolidated judgment of the First Appellate Court/District Judge, Multan in Civil Appeals Nos.118/13 and 119/13 of 1982, have been dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.
2. The precise relevant facts of the case as undisputedly arise out of the pleadings of the parties are that the suit-land measuring 200 Kanals was originally allotted to one Kanjeer Khan as a Military Grant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, Kanjeer Khan expired in the year 1934, leaving behind the following legal heirs:
(i) Mst. Ijra Bibi (widow) and one son Races Khan born out of wedlock of Kanjeer Khan and Mst. Ijra Bibi.
(ii) Mst. Gul Bibi (widow) and two daughters namely Gul Naura alias Gul Nauza and Gulaba Bibi from her.
The learned District Judge, Multan/First Appellate Court for convenience in view of the two suits documents and the evidence led by the parties at the trial in its consolidated judgment dated 2-12-1982 subject-matter of the above said R.S.As. had constructed the pedigree table of Kanjeer Khan, the original allottee of the suit-land, which of course is of much assistance and to better understand the claim and rights of the parties litigating over the suit property, reproduced hereinbelow:--
Kanjeer Khan | | ________________________|________________________ | | Ghulam Begum Ijara Bibi ______|__________________ | | | | | | | Gul Naura Mst. Gulaba Bibi Raees Kha n Alias Gul Nauza Bibi | | | | Umer Khatab etc. Mst. Bakhti (widow) (Plaintiffs of Civil Suit | No.226 of 1967 | ____________|__________ | | Gul Kanjeer Habeeb
3. After one year or so after the death of the original allottee Kanjeer Khan, his widow Mst. Ijra Bibi also died. In the meanwhile Mutation No.20 Exh.D.6 was sanctioned and attested on 12-1-1995 through which half of the suit-land was mutated and transferred in the name of Raees Khan (son of Kanjeer Khan from Ijra Bibi) and the remaining one half of the suit-land was mutated in the name of Mst. Gul Begum (widow of Kanjeer Khan). Subsequent thereto Raees Khan and Gul Begum were granted proprietary rights of suit property upon depositing the requisite State dues and thereupon registered sale-deeds were executed in their favour on behalf of the Government on 28-5-1946.
Mst. Gul Begum died in the year 1959 and mutation of her inheritance (Exh.D.7) was attested on 9-11-1959 whereunder she was treated as a limited owner under custom notionally and her estate treated to have reverted to her late husband Kanjeer Khan, whereas; one half of the suit property was given to Races Khan and the other remaining half of the suit property was transferred in favour of her daughter Mst. Gul Naura alias Gul Nauza.
4. Raees Khan questioned the validity and legality of the above said mutation of inheritance of Mst. Gul Begum by filing Civil Suit No.7 of 1962 against Mst. Gul Naura Begum in the Court of Civil Judge First Class Khanewal, which was resisted by the said defendant by means of her written statement on various grounds of law and facts. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court i.e. the Senior Civil Judge; Multan, which finally decided the suit, framed five issues. Both the parties in support of their claims and pleas adduced evidence in which, it was claimed by Raees Khan plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) that he was entitled to succeed to the whole of the estate of late Kanjeer Khan and Mst. Gul Naura defendant was not entitled to any share in the estate.
5. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16-11-1962 partly decreed the suit in favour of Races Khan to the extent of joint possession of share 31/48 share of the suit-land in his favour and granted decree in favour of the defendant Mst. Gul Naura to the extent of 17/48 share. Against this decree, Raees Khan preferred Civil Appeal No.118/13 of 1982 decided by the learned District Judge, Multan vide consolidated judgment and decree, dated 2-12-1982.
6. Umer Khatab and others claiming to be the sons and daughters of Mst. Gulaba Bibi (daughter of Mst. Gul Begum widow of Kanjeer Khan) who also filed suit for declaration and consequential relief against Mst. Gul Naura alias Mst. Gul Nauza (the other daughter of said Gul Begum-the other widow of Kanjeer Khan, as well as; the legal representative of Raees Khan), who by that time had died. Their claim in the suit was that they are in possession of suit property to the extent of 1/4th share in their own rights as owners in the estate of late Kanjeer Khan i.e. the original allottee. Mst. Gul Naura alias Mst. Gul Nauza conceded to this claim, however; the other two defendants namely Gul Kanjeer Khan and Habibullah Khan both sons of late Raees Khan resisted the suit on various grounds of law and facts. The learned trial Court/Civil Judge First Class, Multan Camp at Khanewal framed the following three issues out of pleadings of the parties:---
"(1) Whether the plaintiffs are heirs of Gut Begum, deceased? OPP (2) If so, what is their share in the suit-land'? OPP
(2-A) Whether Mst. Gul Begum inherited the property as limited owner and died as such? OPD
7. The learned trial Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 28-11-1973 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs namely Umer Khatab and others by concluding that the plaintiffs were the successors- in-interest of Mst. Gulaba Bibi daughter of Mst. Gul Begum and sister of Mst. Gul Nauza, as such; she was entitled to inherit suit property and that Gul Begum had not succeeded as limited owner under the customs. This decree was also challenged in appeal by the contesting defendants namely, Gul Kanjeer Khan and Habibullah Khan sons of Races Khan through Civil Appeal No.119/13 of 1982 decided by the learned District Judge, Multan vide above mentioned consolidated judgment and decree, dated 2-12-1982.
Both the civil appeals were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court/District Judge, Multan by holding that Mst. Gul Begum was holding the estate as full owner, thus, her daughters namely, Mst. Gul Naura alias Gul Nauza Bibi and Mst. Gulaba Bibi were entitled to the estate of deceased Mst. Gul Begum according to their heritable shares and Races Khan (now his legal heirs) could not inherit from the above said estate devolved upon Mst. Gul Begum by upholding the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1973 passed in Civil Suit No.226 of 1966 filed by Umer Khatab and others. The consolidated judgment passed in the above said appeals were assailed in the R.S.As. by the petitioners before the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
8. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Mr. M. Iqbal Khan, the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents on caveat have been heard at some length. The learned counsel for the petitioners in substance canvassed the same arguments as were made before the learned Division Bench of the High Court by contending that the same have not been dilated upon and decided in their true perspective resulting into the serious miscarriage of justice and in view of the evidence available on record the petitioners are entitled to the whole of the estate of the original allottee.
9. The learned counsel on caveat for the respondents submitted that concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts i.e. the Honourable High Court and the learned First Appellate Court in view of the undisputed facts on record are unexceptionable. The impugned judgment according to the learned counsel does not suffer from factual or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this court.
10. The contentions put forth on behalf of the parties have been considered in the light of impugned judgment and the evidence available on record gone through carefully with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The judgment impugned in R.S.As. before the learned High Court has also been perused minutely and carefully. From the pleadings of the parties, it is reflected that the dispute related to the estate left by deceased Gul Begum. It is an undisputed fact that she had paid full price of the land to the extent of her share i.e. 100 Kanals of the suit-land and the sale-deed was also executed and registered in her favour on 28-5-1946 (Exh.P.12). Thus, in our considered view, both the learned Courts have correctly concluded that she was the full owner of the land measuring 100 Kanals as per registered sale-deed. Moreover, Races Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners never agitated or questioned about the attestation of Mutation No.20, dated 12-1-1935 (Exh.D.6) upon the death of original allottee Kanjeer Khan in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act, 1912 and the sale-deed made in favour of Mst. Gul Begum (her step-mother), therefore; it was rightly concluded by the learned Courts that the petitioners being successors of Raees Khan now could not successfully agitate the matter. The present petitioners though did raise objection that Mst. Gulaba Bibi was not the daughter of Gul Begum but the impugned judgment reflects that their learned counsel rather conceded the relationship of the parties inter se with reference to the original allottee Kanjeer Khan and the fact that Mst. Gulaba Bibi was the daughter of Mst. Gul Begum was affirmed in the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court rendered in appeals by the learned District Judge in view of the above noted factual aspects of the case. Races Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was the step-son of Mst. Gul Begum and was obviously not entitled to succeed to the estate left by the said lady on opening of her inheritance in presence of her own children.
11. Both the learned Courts have dealt with and decided all the material questions of facts and law involved in the case in their true perspective, as well as; in view of the contentions raised during the arguments on behalf of the petitioners to which no exception could be taken. No material part of the evidence appears to have been omitted from consideration, misread or misconstrued having any material bearing on the decision taken by the learned High Court in the judgment impugned herein. The contentions raised by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners are devoid of substance. Consequently; both these petitions are dismissed. Leave refused.
S.A.K./G-26/SC Leave refused.