1984 PLP 1490 (MLD)

The dispute between the parties relates to the inheritance, to the estate of Muhammad Hussain deceased. It appears that in the first instance, two mutations were sanctioned and the petitioner treated as his heir, but on the respondent's appeal, the Collector rejected the petitioner's claim as being the son of the deceased. He thereupon filed a declaratory suit that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute, to the extent of 14/72 share. His case is that he was born out of the wed-lock of Mst. Nishan with Muhammad Hussain deceased but when the petitioner was still an infant, the latter turned her out of his house and she alongwith the petitioner started living with her sister namely, Zainan, who was married to Muhammad Ramzan. According to the petitioner his original name was Aziz but Muhammad Ramzan re-named him as Nazar Muhammad, brought him up and adopted him as his son. That it was only a few days before the death of Muhammad Hussain that the petitioner came to know that he was the son of the deceased, when he as well as the village Lambardar were called for by the deceased and this information conveyed to them.

2. On evaluation of the material on the record, the learned trial Court disbelieved the petitioner's evidence. and maintained that he was not the son of deceased. The suit was thus dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge upheld this dismissal and the petitioner's appeal failed. Hence this revision by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

3. Apart from the oral evidence, the respondent's relied upon a number of documents, wherein the name of the petitioner's father is recorded as Muhammad Ramzan. This documentary evidence consists of petitioner's school leaving certificate (Exh.D.l), his 'Nikahnama' (Exh.D.2), 'register Haqdaran' for 1972-73 and 1973-74 (Exh.D.4, D.3), three mutations (Exh.D.5, D.6 and D. 7) and copies of the Collector's orders (Exh.D.10 and D.11).

4. The only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Courts below ignored the copy of the birth register EXh.P.l and thus their findings are vitiated by non-reading of evidence and that, therefore, the impugned judgment does not satisfy requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. The learned counsel further relied on Nisar Ahmad v. Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore and another P L D 1976 Lah. 1162.

5. It is correct that Exh. P.1 does not find mention in the judgments of the Courts below. According to the document, a male child, by the name of Aziz Ahmad s/o Hussain Muhammad was born on 5-8-1945. This document was tendered in evidence by the petitioner's counsel in his statement. While appearing as his own witness, the petitioner did not refer to it. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence on the record, to connect this document with the petitioner. He claims to be the son of Muhammad Hussain whereas in EXh.P.l the name of the child's father is recorded as Hussain Muhammad. I have gone through the evidence on the file and find that Mst. Waziran, the widow of Muhammad Hussain, who appeared as D.W.3, in her statement, during cross-examination deposed that a son Muhammad Aziz was born out of his marriage with the deceased, who died 12/13 years ago. In the circumstances of the case no weight can be given to the petitioner's reliance EXh.P.l. It is difficult to accept that deceased Muhammad Hussain would have given the name of Aziz to his two sons. Keeping in view the evidence on the record, the tenor of the impugned judgment, I feel even if EXh.P.l was present to the mind of the learned Additional District Judge, his decision would not have been different. The finding that the petitioner is not the son of Muhammad Hussain, is a finding of fact and in my estimation, non-consideration of EXh.P.l does not strip it of its soundness in the decision recorded by the Courts below.

6. For over 32 years, the petitioner was known to be the son of Muhammad Ramzan. It is in his statement that he as well as the deceased resided in the same village and on a number of times, he met him. The story disclosed by the petitioner that he came to know of his real father, shortly before the death of the deceased has rightly been discarded by the learned lower Courts. The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel has no bearing on the case in hand. The impugned judgment satisfies the requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C.

7. There is no merit in this revision. Dismissed in limine. M.A.K. Revision refused.