1994 PLP 1764 (MLD)

Petitioner claimed to be a real son of Kalay Khan. He filed a civil suit for correction of his name in the records as Ramzan alias Khushi Muhammad son of Kalay Khan, instead of Khushi Muhammad son of Allah Ditta. Suit was filed against the Public at Large (Awam-un-Nas) and University of Punjab through its Registrar. Suit was contested. On 31-1-1993, the trial Court dismissed it. On appeal by the petitioner, decision of the trial Court was maintained on 12-1-1994. Thereupon, a petition in revision was filed in this Court. Petitioner was born from the womb of Mst. Bhagan Bibi. She was married to Kalay Khan. He divorced her. Thereupon, she contracted marriage with Allah Ditta. Petitioner was brought up by Allah Ditta. In records, petitioner was shown son of Allah Ditta. Kalay Khan married another lady and had children from her. He died in the year 1989. He was survived by a widow and children from her. His estate was distributed amongst his surviving heirs by a mutation of inheritance attested for it. Petitioner was an employee as tubewell-attendant in the service of University of Punjab. He retired from the service. Suit filed by him was for a mere correction of his true name in records. His purpose was to establish him as son of Kalay Khan. The object was to get a share in the heritable property left by Kalay Khan. On record, there was evidence that Kalay Khan owned considerable land which was already distributed among his surviving heirs. Petitioner was not one of them. Heirs of Kalay Khan were not parties to the suit for correction of petitioner's birth-records. Obviously, they alone were interested to deny his legal character as son of Kalay Khan. University of Punjab and for that matter, Public-at-Large had not much stake in the matter. Petitioner had very shrewdly kept out his real adversaries out of the suit for gaming an easy victory and then to use the judgment in the suit as a spring-board for success in a possible second civil suit for sharing inheritance of the land left by Kalay Khan. Therefore, a suit for mere establishment of relationship without claiming further relief to the property left by Kalay Khan was incompetent. A relief for declaration was not obtainable as a matter of absolute right. The Court has a discretion to grant it or not on a review of all the circumstances of the case. Where the declaration amounts to a part settlement of the dispute, the Court may in its discretion refuse to grant the declaration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, suit for mere declaration for establishment of relationship did not lie. Proper remedy for the petitioner, as pointed out by the learned Additional District Judge was to institute a suit for his share in the property left by Kalay Khan and that suit in the very nature of things must be against the surviving heirs of Kalay Khan on whom his property had already devolved. As far the impugned judgments, there was no flaw in them. In consequence, civil revision is dismissed in limine. M.BA./R-142/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.