2017 PLP 49 (YLRN)

CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.

This judgment will dispose of C.R.No.1617 and C.R.No.1654 of 2005 jointly, which have been filed against the consolidated judgment and decrees dated 13.4.2002 whereby two separate suits filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned trial court as well as the judgments and decrees dated 6.5.2005 whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed and common question of facts and law are involved.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners of C.R. No.1617 of 2005 are the descendents of Mst. Sardaran Bibi daughter of Noor Din, who was grandson of Ladha and they brought a suit for declaration styled as Ch. Ghulam Nabi and others v. Malik Faqir Muhammad and others while challenging the vires of mutation of inheritance No.56 dated 6.6.1917 (Exh.P2) of Ladha, mutation No.142 (Exh.P4) of life estate of Mst. Karam Bibi and subsequent Mutation No.503 dated 5.8.1969, Mutation No.542 dated 12.5.1971, and Mutations Nos.574, 575, 576 and 577 dated 22.3.1973 with the assertion that they were entitled to inherit the agricultural land left by Ladha, the common ancestor, and that Noor Din grandson of Ladha died some days after the death of Ladha, who was not the pre-deceased grandson of Ladha and as such they were entitled to inherit to the extent of share from the disputed property left by Ladha deceased. The said suit was resisted by the defendants-respondents/descendents of Muhammad Ali, who also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 8.12.1993. However, their civil revision was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 15.6.1994 and the plaint of the above referred suit filed by the descendents of Mst. Sardaran Bibi was rejected. Against the said judgment Civil Appeal No.1423 of 1995 as well as Civil Appeal No.1424 of 1995 were filed before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, which were accepted by the apex Court vide judgment dated 28.5.1999 and the suit was remanded to the learned trial court with the direction that same should be decided after recording evidence of the parties.

3. After the remand of said suit filed by the descendents of Mst. Sardaran Bibi, the petitioners of C.R.No.1654 of 2005/ descendents of Mst. Begum Bibi, the granddaughter of Ladha deceased on 7.7.1999 also filed a suit for declaration titled as "Muhammad Hussain and others v. Nooran Bibi and others" before the learned trial court with the assertion that as descendents of Mst. Begum Bibi the granddaughter of Ladha were entitled to get 1/3rd share out of the estate left by deceased Ladha as the parties were Muslim and inheritance was to be governed by Shariah on the principle that nearer in blood must exclude the remote from inheritance and that decendents of Sardar Bibi cannot claim any share in the suit property. Both these suits filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners were contested by the respondents/defendants, who are descendents of Muhammad Ali whom the disputed property left by Ladha deceased was mutated vide mutations No.56 Exh.P2 and mutation No.142 Exh.P

4. The learned trial court framed the following consolidated issues:--

1. Whether the plaintiff of the suit titled Ch. Ghulam Nabi and others v. Malik Faqir Muhammad and others are entitled to inherit 1/2 share of the land left by Noor Din and Ldha deceased under the Muslim Law of inheritance on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs of suit titled Muhammad Hussain and others v. Nooran Bibi and others are entitled to inherit 1/3 shares of the land left by Ladha deceased as legal heirs of Mst. Begum Bibi on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP

3. Whether the mutation No.56 dated 6.6.1917 mutation No.142 dated 26.9.1927, mutation No.503 dated 5.8.1969, mutation No.542 dated 12.5.1971, and mutation Nos.574, 575, 576 and 577 dated 22.3.1973 are null and void inoperative and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession of the land to the extent of shares from the defendants by way of mandatory injunction?OPP

5. Whether the plaintiffs of the suit titled Muhammad Hussain and others v. Mst. Nooran Bibi and others are entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

6. Whether the plaintiffs of both the suits have no cause of action and locus standi to file their respective? OPD

7. Whether both the suits are within time? OPP

8. Whether both the suit for declaration without the prayer of possession are barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD

9. Whether Mst. Sardar Bibi was not entitled to inherit the land in dispute under the customary law and thus the plaintiffs of suit titled Ghulam Nabi and others v. Malik Faqir Muhammad and others have no vested right to file this suit under the law? OPD

10. Whether Mst. Begum Bibi was not entitled to inherit the land in dispute under the customary law and thus the plaintiffs of the suit titled Muhammad Hussain and others v. Mst. Nooran Bibi and others have no vested right to file this suit under the law? OPD

11. Whether the parties had been governed by the customary law of Rajput of Lahore if so, its effect?OPD

12. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct of the present suits?OPD

13. Whether the suits are barred under section 2-A of Ordinance VIII of 1983?OPD

14. Whether both the suits are false and frivolous and the defendants (contesting) are entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.?

15. Whether the suit titled Muhammad Hussain v. Nooran Bibi and others is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD

16. Relief.

4. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective claims.

5. Initially the learned trial court, vide consolidated judgment and decrees dated 13.4.2002 dismissed the above styled two suits. However the learned lower appellate court, vide judgment and decrees dated 5.10.2004 remanded the suits to the learned trial court to decide the same afresh. Being aggrieved the respondents-defendants assailed the remand order dated 5.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge by filing two separate civil revisions before this Court, which were allowed vide judgment dated 14.2.2005 and the appeals filed by the petitioners were remanded to the lower appellate court for decision on merits as there was no reasons to remand the suits to the learned trial Court, who vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.5.2005 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved the above referred two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs of both the suits.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners of C.R.No.1617 of 2005 i.e. the descendents of Mst. Sardaran Bibi has argued that both the courts below have delivered impugned judgments and decrees on erroneous premises of law and without application of their judicious mind. It is further argued that the courts below never considered paras 3 and 4 of the written statement filed by the respondents as well as Exh.P22 pertaining to petition for leave to appeal before the apex Court besides mutation No.142 Exh.P4 wherein Mst. Sardaran Bibi was shown to have died on 26.9.1927, who was admittedly alive at the time of death of Ladha and the plea of the petitioners that she was intentionally and fraudulently shown as dead has not been considered by the courts below. He has further mooted that the courts below wrongly observed that life estate devolved upon Mst. Karam Bibi stood terminated automatically with her death/murder and violated the dictum laid down by the apex Court as well as Federal Shariat Court to the effect that maintenance holders are given some land for maintenance till life. He has further argued that Mst. Sardaran Bibi was never given anything as life estate, which is proved on the record and how the life estate could be terminated especially when she was deprived of her rights fraudulently. He has next contended that findings of the courts below that Noor Din died prior to the death of Ladha is also erroneous. He has further submitted that Mst. Karam Bibi was murdered by Muhammad Ali predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 23 in order to usurp the property left by her of which she was a limited owner and the learned courts below have ignored the said aspect of the case. He has next argued that being murderer Muhammad Ali was not entitled to inherit the property of deceased Mst. Karam Bibi under the Muslim Law. He has further added that the apex Court while interpreting the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 and section 2-A inserted through Punjab Amendment Ordinance XIII of 1983 held that property inherited and left by a Muslim before 15.3.1948 under custom shall be devolved upon all his legal heirs male and female, but the said dictum has been violated by the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. The learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the judgments reported as Mst. Sunar Begum and 3 others v. Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Islamabad and another (PLD 1988 FSC 1), Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others (1999 SCMR 2883), National Bank of Pakistan through Chairman v. Nasim Arif Abbasi and others (2011 SCMR 446), Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yusuf Khan (PLD 1959 SC (PAK) 9), Muhammad Asghar Shah v. Muhammad Gulsher Khan and Khadim Hussain (PLD 1949 Lahore 116), Khan Baig and others v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others (1988 SCMR 1775), Walyat Ali and others v. Mst. Alif Noor alias Alif Bibi and others (2000 PSC 589), Falak Sher and others v. Mst. Banno Mai and others (2006 SCMR 884), Musa Khan v. Begum Jan and others (PLD 1990 SC 982), Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman and others (PLD 2002 SC 677), Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Naseem Akhtar and 4 others (2008 CLC 1720), Mohsin Khan and 3 others v. Ahmad Ali and 2 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 1), Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others (2014 SCMR 801), Mst. Fazeelat Jan and others v. Sikandar through His Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2003 SC 475), Sardar v. Mst. Nehmat Bi and 8 others (1992 SCMR 82) and Mst. Fatima Begum and another v. Khush Naseeb Khan and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 641) has prayed for acceptance of the civil revision, setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and further for decreeing the suit filed by the petitioners.

7. Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioners of C.R.No.1654 of 2005 has argued that both the courts below misinterpreted the provisions of section 2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 inserted through Punjab Amendment Ordinance XIII of 1983. He has further argued that both the courts below wrongly observed that Muhammad Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents had become the absolute owner of the suit land left by Ladha, which is contrary to the spirit of laws on the subject introduced from time to time. He has further mooted that the impugned judgments and decrees are not only contrary to the spirit of Islam and dictate ordained by Almighty Allah in the Holy Quran, but also the verdict of apex Court delivered in the judgments reported as Mst. Ghulam Jannat v. Ghulam Jannat (2003 SCMR 362). He has further argued that Rajpoots of Mauza Shamkey Bhattian, Lahore were not governed by any custom and that the females were entitled to inherit the property under the Shariah. The learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the judgments reported as Ghulam Haider and others v. Murad through Legal Representatives and others (PLD 2012 SC 501), Muhammad Zubair and others v. Muhammad Sharif (2005 SCMR 1217), Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through Chairman and 3 others v. Messrs Muhammad Saeed Wazir Former General Manager (T&R) PTCL and another (2005 SCMR 1225), Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1985 SC 407), A.F.Ferguson and Co. v. The Sindh Labour Court and another (PLD 1985 SC 429), Mst. Ghulam Janat and others v. Ghulam Janat through Legal Heirs and others (2003 SCMR 362), Shamshad Ali v. Senior Post Master (DLY), Islamabad G.P.O. Islamabad and 2 others (2003 SCMR 367), Mst. Sharam v. Taj Muhammad and others (2002 CLC 2001), Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others (PLD 1995 SC 423) has prayed for acceptance of the civil revision, setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and further for decreeing the suit filed by the petitioners.

8. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants i.e. descendants of Muhammad Ali supported the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and also argued that at the time of death of Ladha, custom was being governed in the region and accordingly out of the disputed property 1/2 share was given to Muhammad Ali whereas other 1/2 share was devolved upon Mst. Karam Bibi, the widow of Noor Din pre-deceased grandson of Ladha vide mutation No.56 Exh.P2 and under prevailing custom the life estate vested in Mst. Karam Bibi after its termination was again reverted to Muhammad Ali vide mutation No.142 Exh.P4 being the sole male heir of Ladha. He has further argued that Muhammad Ali was only surviving male heir of Ladha deceased and he accordingly inherited whole of the suit property as Muslim under the custom and, therefore, on the strength of section 2A inserted through Punjab Amendment Ordinance XIII of 1983, Muhammad Ali became the absolute owner of the disputed property. He while relying upon the judgments reported as Bashir Ahmed v. Abdul Aziz and others (2009 SCMR 1014), Federation of Pakistan and another v. Irfan Tariq and others (2009 SCMR 1018), Mrs. Anis Haider and others v. S. Amir Haider and others (2008 SCMR 236), Mst. Fazal Nishan and others v. Ghulam Qadir and others (1992 SCMR 1773), Khuda Bakhsh through His Legal Heirs v. Mst. Niaz Bibi and another (PLD 1994 SC 298), Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others (2008 SCMR 230), Suba through His 8 L.Rs v. Mst. Fatima Bibi through Heir L.Rs and others (1992 SCMR 1721), Muhammad Asghar and 3 others v. Rehmat Ullah and 2 others (2012 MLD 1791) and Ghulam Haider and others v. Murad through Legal Representatives and others (PLD 2012 SC 501) has prayed for dismissal of these civil revisions.

9. Arguments heard and record perused.

10. The case emerges from the pleadings of the parties is that one Ladha, the common predecessor-in-interest of the parties was owner of agricultural land measuring 2560 kanals 17 marlas situated in Mauza Shamkey Bhattian, Lahore. His son Karam Elahi was pre-deceased leaving behind Muhammad Ali and Begum Bibi his son and daughter as well as other pre-deceased grandson Noor Din, who was survived by Mst Sardaran Bibi daughter and Mst. Karam Bibi widow. Ladha died in the year 1917 and on his death agricultural property left by him was mutated under inheritance mutation No.56 dated 6.6.1917 Exh.P2 in favour of Muhammad Ali the predecessor-in-interest of respondents to the extent of 1/2 share and Mst. Karam Bibi widow of Noor Din to the extent of remaining 1/2 share as a life estate. Mst. Karam Bibi was murdered in the year 1923 and mutation of her life estate was also sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Ali the predecessor-in-interest of respondents vide mutation No.142 dated 26.9.1927 Exh.P4.

11. The perusal of plaint filed by Ghulam Nabi (deceased) etc. petitioners of C.R.No.1617 of 2005/descendents of Mst. Sardaran Bibi reveals that their grouse is that Noor Din, the father of Mst. Sardaran Bibi/grandson of Ladha deceased had died some days after the death of Ladha, the common predecessor-in-interest of the parties and was entitled to inherit the legacy of Ladha deceased. Admittedly no documentary proof to the effect that Noor Din had died after the death of Ladha is available on file. Even no direct oral evidence has been produced by the said plaintiffs/petitioners through which it could be gathered that Noor Din was alive at the time of death of Ladha. Muzaffar Ali, one of the plaintiffs, appeared as PW1 and Muhammad Rasheed aged 55/56 years was produced as PW

2. The latter deposed nothing in his examination-in-chief regarding the above fact of the case. Then there is left only statement of PW1, who deposed in his examination-in-chief that Noor Din had died some days after the death of Ladha. However, he conceded during the cross-examination that this fact was heard by him from the others and through hearsay evidence a fact cannot be proved as the same attains no value in the eye of law. Only solitary statement of PW1 regarding the death of Noor Din and that too on the basis of hearsay is insufficient to hold that Noor Din had died after the death of Ladha.

12. The perusal of mutation No.56 (Exh.P2) further reveals that 1/2 share out of the legacy left by Ladha was devolved upon Muhammad Ali, the real brother of Noor Din and if Noor Din was alive at that moment, then other share would have been mutated in his favour. Moreover, if it was the intention to deprive Noor Din from the legacy of Ladha, then why the other share out of the disputed property was mutated in favour of her widow Mst. Karam Bibi. This fact proves that Muhammad Ali did nothing to deprive Noor Din from the estate of Ladha as he was not alive at that moment, so life estate was created in favour of his widow as per custom. It is also important feature of the case that the death entry of Ladha was brought on the file by the respondents/ defendants as Exh.P12, which shows that family of Ladha was vigilant to incorporate the death entries of their family members in the relevant record. On the other hand the death entry of Noor Din was neither produced on record nor any effort was made or application moved by the descendents of Noor Din to summon the concerned register maintained by Union Council in this regard. If there was a difference of some days in the death of Ladha as well as Noor Din, then the death entry of Noor Din might also have been got incorporated in the relevant register, but non-production of record regarding death entry of Noor Din leaves a question mark about the claim introduced by the plaintiffs. The inference drawn by the courts below that Noor Din had died prior to the death of Ladha is born out from the evidence available on file. Even otherwise, the fact that Noor Din was not pre-deceased grandson of Ladha, the onus was on the shoulders of above referred plaintiffs, who failed to prove the same.

13. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners of C.R.No.1617 of 2005 that Mst. Karam Bibi was murdered by Muhammad Ali and being murderer, he was not entitled to inherit the property of Mst. Karam Bibi is also without any force on the following two grounds:--

1. Muhammad Ali had been acquitted by the competent Court of law of the charge of murder of Mst. Karam Bibi, which fact was also conceded by PW1 during the cross-examination.

2. Even according to their own version, Mst. Karam Bibi was only life estate holder of the land in dispute till her life and after termination thereof on her death the property retained by her as life estate was returned to Ladha, the actual owner and common predecessor in interest of the parties under the law. For the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that Muhammad Ali had committed murder of Mst. Karam Bibi, although there is no evidence in this regard, even then he being the sole heir of Ladha deceased had rightly inherited the disputed property, which ultimately fell in the ownership of Ladha on the death of Karam Bibi.

14. It is also pertinent to note that Mst. Sardaran Bibi remained alive till 1970, who took his last breath on 18.9.1970, but during her lifetime, she had never filed any suit challenging the disputed mutation Exhs.P2 and P

4. Even after 23 years of her death the suit was filed by her descendents before the learned trial court. The said aspect of the case made it clear that Ladha was governed by custom and inheritance mutation No.56 dated 6.6.1917 (Exh.P2) had been rightly sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Ali as grandson and the remaining share out of the total legacy was mutated in favour of Mst. Karam Bibi widow of pre-deceased grandson of Ladha as life estate. So the plaintiffs/petitioners of C.R.No.1617 of 2005 had no locus standi to challenge the impugned mutations and both the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit filed by them on merits as well as on limitation. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that defendants/respondents as well as the rival plaintiffs conceded the claim of the plaintiffs is also misconceived as from the perusal of the written statement or Exh.P22 no such admission on their part is found available on the record.

15. The other suit filed by descendents of Mst. Begum Bibi, the granddaughter of Ladha deceased/petitioners of C.R.No.1654 of 2005 hinges upon the principle that whether the legacy of Ladha was to be distributed according to custom or Shariah. The version of the plaintiffs of the said suit is that parties were never governed by custom and under Shariah they being descendents of Ladha are entitled to get 1/3 share in the disputed property. There is no cavil with the proposition that if it is proved that Ladha was governed by Shariah, then her granddaughter cannot be deprived of her legal share. Admittedly Ladha died prior to the enforcement of Shariat Application Act 1948 when still custom was applicable. Ladha deceased was Muslim and Muhammad Ali was his grandson and being sole male heir, he acquired agricultural land left by Ladha in the Province of Punjab before 15.3.1948 under custom through mutation No.56 Exh.P2 as well as mutation No.142 Exh.P

4. Muhammad Ali by virtue of such acquisition was deemed to have become absolute owner of entire land acquired by him as if such land had been devolved upon him under Islamic Shariat Law. This view has been fortified in the judgment reported as Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1985 SC 407) wherein it has been held that the purview of newly-added section 2-A in the 1962 Act read with its clause (a) provides that any owner who as a "male heir" had inherited agricultural land before 15.3.1948 under custom shall, by virtue of the new statutory command, be deemed to have inherited it under the Muslim (Shariat) Law and was thus absolute owner enjoying full power over it under the said law and that being so, no restriction as visualised by custom would annul the alienation. This view has recently been once again affirmed by the apex Court in the judgment reported as Ghulam Haider and others v. Murad through L.Rs and others (PLD 2012 SC 501) while observing that by virtue of section 2-A introduced through Ordinance XIII of 1983 a male heir acquiring any agricultural land in the Province of the Punjab before March 15, 1948 under custom from a person who at the time of such acquisition was a Muslim was to be deemed to have become, upon such acquisition, an absolute owner of the entire land acquired by him as if such land had devolved on him under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). For ready reference the relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under:-- "For the purposes of understanding the true scope, effect and application of the said Ordinance we have attended to each and every word of the same quite carefully and have observed that, according to the Preamble to the said Ordinance, the purpose of introduction of that legislation was "to amend the West Pakistan Muslim Personal (Shariat) Act, 1962 so as to bring it in conformity with the Shariah in the manner hereinafter appearing." It is, therefore, quite clear that the effort made by the said Ordinance was to bring the Act of 1962 in conformity with the Shariah but the "manner" chosen for achieving that object was the one provided for in that Ordinance and, thus, any other mode conceivable for achieving the same object was meant to be ignored or disregarded and the purpose was to be achieved only in the manner specified in that piece of legislation. The next thing noticed by us is that the provisions of the newly introduced section 2-A through that piece of legislation were to have their effect "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 2 or any other law for the time being in force, or any custom or usage or decree, judgment or order of any Court". This shows that what the new legislation wanted to achieve was that successions prior to Act IX of 1948 were meant to be governed only by the freshly introduced section 2-A introduced through Ordinance XIII of 1983 and not by any other law or judicial intervention or interpretation. It is but obvious that by introducing Ordinance XIII of 1983 the legislature intended to put to rest all controversies and litigation in respect of successions prior to Act IX of 1948 and to hold for all times to come that all such successions were to be governed and covered by the freshly introduced section 2-A. It was in that background that section 2-A introduced through Ordinance XIII of 1983 had categorically provided that "

where before the commencement of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1948, a male heir had acquired any agricultural land under custom from the person who at the time of such acquisition was a Muslim:--(a) he shall be deemed to have become, upon such acquisition, an absolute owner of such land, as if such land had devolved on him under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)

."

16. The plaintiffs/revision petitioners of above referred revision petition failed to bring any material on record that at the time of death of Ladha deceased he was not governed by custom. The solitary statement of PW3 on their behalf is available on file, who during the course of cross-examination categorically stated as under:- and a perusal thereof reveals that in fact he supported the stance of the respondents/defendants that the female heirs of a deceased were excluded from the inheritance of their ancestors as per custom. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has referred to the judgments reported as Suba through Legal Heirs v. Fatima Bibi through legal heirs and others (1996 SCMR 158) and Suba through 8 Legal Heirs v. Mst. Fatima Bibi and others (1992 SCMR 1721) which he states pertains to the land falling in the same Mauza Shamkey Bhattian wherein it was held that custom was prevailing in the said locality and tribes prior to the promulgation of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. It is settled principle that rule of inheritance at certain time was custom and if a person acquired the property under a custom from a Muslim, he shall be deemed to have become an absolute owner of such land as if such land had been devolved on him under the Muslim Shariat Law provided such acquisition had been acquired prior to the enforcement of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 and such devolution had been declared absolute by section 2A introduced through Ordinance XIII of 1983.

17. It is also significant to note that Ladha had died in the year 1917 whereas Begum Bibi, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs of C.R.No.1654 of 2005 had died in the year 1964, who did not agitate the disputed mutation throughout her life. Moreover, Muhammad Ali upon whom the property was devolved died in the year 1969 and in this era other mutations were also attested in due process of law, but the plaintiffs remained silent for a long time. The suit was filed in the year 1993 after an elapse of 76/77 years from the attestation of mutation No.56 Exh.P2, 66 years after the attestation of second mutation No.142 Exh.P4, 30 years after the death of Mst. Begum Bibi and after 23 years from the death of Muhammad Ali, which was filed beyond period of limitation. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases. Both the learned courts below have non-suited the petitioners through the impugned judgments and decrees on the valid reasons.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to highlight or point out any misreading or non-reading or any infirmity and perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. Both the courts below have given concurrent conclusion against the petitioners. This Court does not normally interfere in the concurrent conclusion arrived at by the Courts below unless the same are found to be falling within the parameters under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgments reported as Aurangzeb through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Jaffar (2007 SCMR 236), Shafi Muhammad v. Khanzada Gul (2007 SCMR 368), Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad (2007 SCMR 926) and Bashir Ahmed v. Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCMR 762). The learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to bring the cases within the parameter of illegality and material irregularity as prescribed under Section 115 of C.P.C., 1908, hence, these Civil Revisions are dismissed. ZC/G-7/L Revision dismissed.