1999 PLP 2692 (YLR)

Ch. Sardar Ali for Petitioners. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Kamboh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th April, 1999. This Civil Revision calls in question the judgment dated 4‑6‑1984 of learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners upholding the judgment, dated 28‑6‑1979 of learned Civil Judge, Shahpur.

2. One Ahmad son of Sadda died on 12‑2‑1969 leaving behind a widow Mst. Jallan and Muhammad as brother. He owned some land in village Bhakkar, Tehsil Shah pur, District Sargodha. Mutation No. 1080 was attested by Revenue Officer on 4‑6‑1969 whereby 1/4th share in the land was mutated in favour of the widow while 3/4th was mutated in favour of the brother Muhammad then filed a suit that he was the sole owner of the suit land as deceased Ahmad was a Shia and, as such, his issueless widow could not inherit from his estate comprising agricultural land. Mst. Jallan filed a written statement denying that Ahmad was a Shia. This factual controversy was put to the following issue by the learned Civil Judge: "Whether Ahmad deceased was a Shia?" Evidence of the parties was recorded and the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit after finding the deceased to be Sunni. The petitioners filed an appeal which met the same fate.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record appended with the civil revision with their assistance.

4. Ch. Sardar Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the learned Additional District Judge had wrongly rejected document Exh.P‑2 which purports to be the death entry of Ahmad deceased. On the other hand, Ch. Nazir Ahmad Kamboh, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the document was rightly excluded from consideration.

5. I have gone through the document Exh.P‑

2. Reliance of the petitioners is on the entry in Column No.4 of the said document, wherein deceased Ahmad is described as a Jafri Shia. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent to document EXh.D.I, also referred to by the learned Additional District Judge and discussed in his judgment by him, which states in the same column that the religion of the deceased was Islam. I find that in this state of affairs the document Exh.P‑2 is not worthy of any credence. The two Courts below had rightly observed that said column required mentioning of religion and not of sect of a deceased person: Apart from this, the entry in the Register of Deaths has been made relevant by Article 49 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984. In my humble opinion, this entry is relevant only for the purpose of proof of death of a person at the time of his death. It will not be safe to rely on such an entry to determine the religion or sect of a deceased person. I draw support for my opinion from a decision in the case of Gurusame Nadar v. Irulappa Konar and others (AIR 1934 Mad. 630) where a statement in the Death Register describing the deceased as a Christian was held not to be reliable on the ground that it was certainly not the statement of the deceased. In fact, admissibility of such statement is very much doubtful. In the present case, the Chaukidar who reported the death of Ahmad deceased was produced as D.W.4. This witness happened to be Shia, but he stated that the deceased was Sunni and that he did not mike a report that the deceased was a Shia.

6. The ocular evidence has been dealt with in sufficient detail by the learned Additional District sludge. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make out a case of misreading or non‑reading of evidence. The learned Courts below rightly observed that in our country there is a presumption that every Muslim citizen is a Sunni unless otherwise proved. The burden of proof has not been discharged by the petitioners in the present case.

7. This civil revision is without any force and as such is dismissed with costs. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./A‑114/L Revision dismissed.