1986 PLP 1946 (MLD)

Riasat Ali for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1985. This R.S.A. impugns the judgment /decree, dated 21‑1‑1984 of the learned Additional District Judge Khushab, whereby the first appeal brought from the decree of the trial Court was dismissed.

2. The dispute related to the inheritance of Mst. Kamman. The respondent Mst. Neesan claiming herself to be the only daughter of the deceased got the whole inheritance mutated in her favour. The plaintiff -respondent Mst. Mehfi brought the suit asserting that she being the sole daughter of the deceased Mst. Kamman was entitled to inherit her exclusively. In other words, Mst. Neesan the present respondent -defendant was denied to be the deceased's daughter. Defendants Nos.2‑4 were impleaded as transferees from Mst. Neesan. Their averment was that they had purchased the suit land as bona fide purchasers without notice for value and that the title passed on to them by Mst. Neesan could not be taken away.

3. The Courts below found concurrently placing reliance basically upon some documents obtained from the Central Record Office that the respondent‑plaintiff Mst. Mehfi was the only heir of the deceased as daughter. The defendant Mst. Neesan's claim of being the deceased's daughter was held not proved.

4. Mr. Muhammad Arif, Advocate for the appellants submitted that the findings of the Courts below were based more or less on conjectures. A reading of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge would show that a critical analysis of the entire evidence was made; Even some documents particularly the pedigree table Exh.P.4 were relied upon in support of the respondents‑plaintiffs' claim. Conversely the appellant examined only a few witnesses without tendering any document and obviously their testimony was not found . to be of much probative force.

5. Ch. Riasat Ali, Advocate for the respondents in reply maintained that in R.S.A. reappraisal of the evidence was not permissible and that the finding whether the plaintiff was the sole daughter of the deceased propositus, essentially being of fact, could not be disturbed in second appeal. There was ample force in the plea. The whole case hinges round the finding of fact. The respondent Mst. Mehfi's contention was considered to have been adequately proved concurrently by the Courts below. No stance of misreading the evidence was pointed out nor was it shown if the finding was arbitrary. Accordingly the R.S.A. is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T. Appeal dismissed.