MUHAMMAD MANZOOR Versus Mst. MANSAB MAI
ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2001 and 21.11.1998 whereby the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration was dismissed.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by the petitioners to declare the inheritance mutation No.136 dated 09.08.1980 attested in favour of the respondents being legal heirs of deceased Ashiq Muhammad, illegal, unlawful, product of fraud and misrepresentation, alleging therein, that they are collaterals of deceased Ashiq Muhammad whereas Mst. Mansab Mai and Shamon alias Aziz Fatima, respondents/defendants herein, are not legal heirs of deceased Ashiq Muhammad. Further alleged, that Mst. Mansab Mai never contracted Nikah with deceased Ashiq Muhammad as Mst. Mansab Mai eloped with one Faiz Bakhsh with whom she contracted marriage and Mst. Shaman alias Aziz Fatima is in fact the daughter of said Faiz Bakhsh. The petitioners while filing the suit also referred the litigation between Mst. Mansab Mai and Faiz Bakhsh.
3. The suit was hotly contested by the respondents through written statement, wherein they claimed, that they are legal heirs of deceased Ashiq Muhammad along with his mother, namely, Satto Mai, so are entitled to inherit out of the legacy of deceased Ashiq Muhammad.
4. Learned trial Court framed out of the controversial contentions, as many as fourteen issues including Issue No.5 and Issues Nos.12 and 12-A which pertain to the limitation of the suit, status as legal heirs of the respondents/defendants, namely, Mst. Mansab Mai, Mst. Shaman alias Aziz Mai, and the relation of Mst. Mansab Mai and Mst. Shamon alias Aziz Begum as to whether they were wife and daughter of Faiz Bakhsh, respectively.
5. Learned trial Court recorded evidence of the respective parties and finally dismissed the suit against which, an appeal was filed which too was dismissed by learned appellate Court. Hence, this revision.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. It is evidenced from the record, which was perused during the course of arguments with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, that the petitioners have miserably failed to prove their claim which agitated while filing the suit against the respondents. Although the petitioners adduced evidence and seriously contested the suit but the witnesses appearing on behalf of the petitioners could not corroborate the version made by the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly argued, that Mst. Mansab Mai was not the wife of deceased Ashiq Muhammad as she contracted marriage with whom she eloped, namely, Faiz Muhammad and Mst. Shamon alias Aziz Mai is in fact the daughter of said Faiz Muhammad. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred certain documents out of the record, but could not controvert the findings recorded by learned Courts below to the effect, that although Mst. Mansab Mai contracted marriage with Faiz Muhammad, but subsequently she was divorced and thereafter contracted marriage with deceased Ashiq Muhammad and Mst. Shamon alias Aziz Mai is the daughter of deceased Ashiq Muhammad.
9. Learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court decided Issues Nos.12 and 12-A and 13 which relate to the status of the respondents as legal heirs being wife and daughter of the deceased, by rendering detailed reasonings, therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below and the record available on the file are sufficient to hold, that Mst. Mansab Mai and Mst. Shamon alias Aziz Fatima are the legal heirs of deceased Ashiq Muhammad, so the revenue authorities rightly entered the inheritance mutation in their name.
10. Another important aspect of the case which is also notable, that at the time of entering the inheritance mutation, the mother of deceased Ashiq Muhammad was also included as one of the heirs of deceased Ashiq Muhammad who did not challenge the relation and status of respondents. Mst. Mansab Mai and Mst. Shamon alias Aziz Fatima. To my mind, the mother of the deceased Ashiq Muhammad, who could be the more beneficiary of the legacy, did not challenge in her lifetime, the status of respondents Mst. Mansab Mai and Mst. Shamon alias Aziz Fatima, therefore, the conduct of the mother of deceased Ashiq Muhammad, now deceased, is sufficient to prove, that Mst. Mansab Mai and Mst. Shamon alias Aziz Fatima were/are legal heirs of deceased Ashiq Muhammad and learned Courts below did not commit any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or act of misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, this type of the concurrent conclusion can hardly be disturbed or interfered. Learned counsel also referred the written statement made by mother of the deceased in the suit as witness, but the same is, on the face of it, evasive and not helpful to the petitioners.
11. There is another most important aspect of the case, that the suit filed by the petitioners against the respondents is hopelessly barred by time, as after the death of Ashiq Muhammad, the inheritance mutation was sanctioned on 09.08.1980, and appeal against the sanctioning of the inheritance mutation was decided on 01.06.1981 by the Additional Commissioner, whereas the suit was filed on 04.06.1994, which is, needless to mention, hopelessly barred by time. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Wali and 10 others v. Akbar and 5 others (1995 SCMR 284) and Mst. Janntan and others v. Mst. Taggi through L.Rs. and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 322). These judgments are not helpful to the petitioners as not applicable on the facts of the case.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, when confronted with these two aspects of the case, i.e. the conduct of the mother of the deceased Ashiq Muhammad who did not question the heirship of Mst. Mansab Mai and Mst. Shamon alias Aziz Fatima and the filing of the suit after a considerable time, learned counsel miserably failed to meet with these queries raised by the Court.
13. In this view of the matter, the concurrent conclusion rendered by learned Courts below on facts as well as on law, can hardly be interfered. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings on facts as well as on law, if not against the record or result of jurisdictional defect, should not be interfered. I am fortified by the esteemed judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCMR 1373), Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161) and Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469).
14. As regards the concurrent findings being assailed in revision, this Court in a judgment cited as Nazir Ahmad through Legal Heirs v. Boota and 3 others (1988 CLC 1925), has observed that at revision stage, re-appraisal is not permissible, nor could any conclusion drawn by the Courts below be upset because an opposite view was also feasible.
15. As regards the limitation of a suit for declaration challenging the wrong entry in the inheritance mutation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Abdul Sattar Khan and another v. Rafiq Khan and others (2000 SCMR 1574) has ruled, that wrong entry in Jamabandi gives a fresh cause of action for a suit for declaration and for the correction of wrong entry, the suit for declaration can be filed within six years from the date when the right to sue had occurred. As evident from the record, the inheritance mutation was entered in the year 1980 whereas the suit was filed on 02.06.1994, therefore, the same is, in view of the principle laid down by he Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, barred by time.
16. The judgments referred above by learned counsel for the petitioners have no nexus with the facts of the case.
17. In the matter of concurrent findings, as referred above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled many a times, that the concurrent findings on facts as well as on record should not be interfered in routine unless there is any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity or mis-reading or non-reading of evidence.
18. In view of the above, this civil revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.
ZC/M-175/L Revision dismisse