2015 PLP 2199 (YLR)

ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.

This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30-11-2006, passed by learned District Judge, Battagram, whereby appeal filed by respondents was accepted and the judgment/decree dated 28-2-2005 of learned trial Court was set aside. Arguments heard and record perused.

2. A perusal of record reveals that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the widow and daughter of deceased Mumtaz and are entitled to the legacy as per their Shari share and that the pedigree table has been wrongly prepared and executed which is ineffective upon their rights. The suit was contested by respondents/defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs have got no nexus with the property and it has been rightly devolved upon the defendants/respondents as legacy of their predecessor in interest. In support of his claim the plaintiffs produced Patwari Halqa as P.W.1 who produced revenue record. Attorney for plaintiff Aurangazeb deposed in favour of plaintiffs as P.W.2, who produced pedigree table produced by themselves and posted as Ex.P.W.2/2 however it was posted subject to objection by defendants on the ground that it is fake, fictitious and has been prepared by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff has not produced any witness in support of pedigree table Exh.P.W.2/2, except the attorney for the plaintiffs. None from the locality has been produced in support of the pedigree table as well as the stance taken by the plaintiffs regarding their entitlement in the suit property. Patwari Halqa has produced pedigree table Exh.P.W.1/3 & Exh.P.W.1/4 wherein plaintiffs are not shown. No evidence to this effect has been produced by the plaintiffs that these documents are wrongly prepared and they were entitled to be incorporated in the revenue record/ Shajara-e-Nasab. Apart from this, the plaintiffs have filed the suit after almost 40 years in the year 2001 whereas the settlement proceedings started in the year 1966-67. No explanation has been given to this effect by the plaintiffs.

3. Even otherwise the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiffs to the effect that Gul Muhammad predecessor in interest of the parties and thereafter his legacy devolved upon Ajib Ullah to the extent of half and remaining half upon Jab Ullah predecessor in interest of plaintiffs and after his death Sardar his son became owner and thereafter it was devolved upon Mumtaz being his son and said Mumtaz having no male issue and plaintiffs being widow and daughter are entitled to their respective shares. This specific version has not been proved through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. Similarly the plea that defendants used to pay share of produce to the plaintiffs, also not proved from the record. The deposition of P.W.2 in isolation cannot be made basis for grant of decree who being of only 30/32 years age was unaware of the relevant facts and was unable to substantiate the stance taken by plaintiffs in their pleadings. Moreover the defendants are admittedly in possession of the property since long.

4. Quite apart from this, presumption of truth of the highest decree was attached to the entries of the first ever settlement record of revenue estate. The plaintiffs remained unsuccessful to prove the pedigree table relied upon and entries in the pedigree table prepared during the settlement record were correct as presumption of truth attached to it under section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, could not be disbelieved as being documentary evidence are at higher pedestal than the oral evidence produced and that too the attorney of the plaintiffs in isolation and after long period of 40 years which could not be termed as to rebut consistent and continuous record of rights, in any eventuality.

5. The Court of appeal has decided the lis pending before it with conscious and application of independent mind, warrants no interference. No illegality or infirmity has been pointed by the petitioners in the impugned judgment. Mere assertion made in the plaint, not proved by the plaintiffs/ petitioners through confidence inspiring evidence, could not be made basis for decree in their favour and Court of appeal has rightly non-suited the plaintiffs on account of deficient evidence in the matter. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. MM/195/P Petition dismissed.