2002 PLP 1173 (SCMR)

MUNIR A SHEIKH, J-‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 28‑2‑2000 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Civil Revision No.47 of 1995 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, The dispute in this case relates to inheritance of Taj Muhammad deceased. He had two wives namely Mst. Amna and Mst. Siddiquan. From Mst. Amna he had three daughters namely Mst. Zebun Nisa, Mst. Nisar Begum and Mst. Shaukat Perveen. From Mst. Siddiquan he had one son Muhammad Jamal and two daughters namely Mst. Jamila and Mst. Akhtari. In the mutation sanctioned in respect of inheritance of Taj Muhammad, the children from Mst. Siddiquan were left out which gave rise to the controversy between the parties, therefore, said Jamal etc. filed the present suit for declaration that they, being the heirs of Taj Muhammad from his second wife Mst. Siddiquan, were entitled to inherit the property in dispute. The present petitioners, who were the cousins of Taj Muhammad i.e. the children of Niaz Muhammad deceased, a brother of Taj Muhammad, claimed share in inheritance for it was held that Taj Muhammad had no male child from Mst. Amna, they would inherit the property in. dispute as residuaries. The trial Court after considering the evidence and evidence of admission made by Mst. Amna, the other wife of Taj Muhammad, that the respondents‑plaintiffs were the children from other wife i.e. Mst. Siddiquan through its judgment dated 15‑12‑1987 decreed the suit. In appeal filed by the petitioners the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit dismissed by acceptance of appeal. . The High Court through the impugned judgment dated 28‑2‑2000 as accepted the civil revision filed by the respondents/plaintiffs; and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court has been set aside by restoring that of the trial Court. = The High Court took note of the fact the First Appellate Court while reversing the finding of the trial Court did not take into consideration the admission made by Mst. Amna that the respondents/plaintiffs were the heirs of Taj Muhammad deceased from his other wife Mst. Siddiquan, therefore, the said judgment was based on misreading and non‑reading of material piece of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not served in civil revision, therefore, they were condemned unheard. We have noticed that in the impugned judgment presence of Mian Arshad Latif, Advocate, has been recorded as counsel for the petitioners who were responders before the High Court. There is no plea raised in this petition that the petitioners did not engage him as a counsel. The omission of such a plea A in the present petition and the other omission of making an application before the High Court for re‑hearing of the civil revision on the above ground is sufficient to hold that they were represented by Mian Arshad Latif, Advocate, who was duly heard before passing the judgment by the High Court, therefore, the argument raised now by the learned counsel is hereby repelled as an afterthought. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not satisfied us as to how Mst. Amna, one of the wives of . Taj Muhammad deceased, would make statement in favour of children of the other wife of said Taj Muhammad for the said admission would adversely affect her own rights and rights of her three daughters in the inheritance of Taj Muhammad deceased. The said statement was rightly treated to be true on the principle that no one would make any admission against his own interest unless it was true. The findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court through the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non‑reading of evidence calling for interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being without any force is dismissed and leave declined. S. A. K. /H‑202/8 Leave refused.