2007 PLP 2606 (YLR)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

The petitioners/defendants impugn the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 9-7-2005 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 17-12-2005, whereby a declaratory suit filed by. Mst. Nawab Bibi (respondent No.1) and Mst. Hajran Begum (now represented by her legal heirs, who are respondents Nos.2 and 3), has been decreed.

2. The two plaintiffs above named claim that they are the daughters of Sardar Ali Shah, who died in 1971. According to them, the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are their brothers while the remaining petitioners are the sons and .daughters of two other deceased brothers, namely, Ahmad Ali and Inayat. According to the plaintiff, they have been wrongly excluded from the inheritance of Sardar Ali Shah.

3. The defence set up by the petitioners was that the two plaintiffs are not the daughters of Sardar Ali Shah. Based on the pleadings, a number of issues were framed. The critical issues, being Issues Nos.1 and 4, were framed in the following terms:-- "(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for in the plaint'? OPP. (2) Whether the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Sardar Ali Shah, if so, its effect'? OPD."

4. When the case was admitted to regular hearing, it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners (as noted in the admitting order) that the respondents plaintiffs had produced only two witnesses, namely, Barkat (P.W.I) and Inayat (P.W.2). This is incorrect. Nawab Bibi herself appeared as P.W.3 and. a material witness, namely, Mahboob Alain (P.W.4), Record Keeper of the National. Registration Office was also examined by the, respondents/plaintiffs. He testified on the basis of the official record to prove the fact that the respondents/ plaintiffs were the daughters of Sardar Ali Shah.

5. The testimony of Barkat (P.W.1) was only selectively read by learned counsel for he petitioner at the admission stage. Today, with the assistance of both learned counsel, I, have gone through the entire statement of this witness. He is credible and has special means of knowledge to depose as to the relationship of the respondents/plaintiffs with Sardar Ali Shah. The learned Courts below were fully justified in relying on the available evidence while, decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs. The witnesses produced by the petitioners, on the other hand, are not qualified to testify on the two issues, reproduced above.

6. Here I may add that during the hearing Niamat Ali (petitioner No.2), who is the son of Sardar Ali Shah, and Mst. Nawab Bibi (respondent No.1/plaintiff) were present in Court. I asked Nawab Bibi as to how many sons Niamat Ali has. She stated that he had six sons and upon being asked to name them, she gave the names of all six in sequence. Niamat Ali did not dispute the statement made by Nawab Bibi in Court. This further confirms the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in favour of the respondents/ plaintiff.

7. In the above circumstances, I find the impugned decrees to be unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition, which is; therefore; dismissed. S.A.K/R-5/L Revision dismissed.