2015 PLP 420 (MLD)

ATIR MAHMOOD, J.

Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19-4-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala who partly accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 20-10-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Gujranwala whereby the suit for declaration with permanent injunction filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alleged in their plaint that they are parents of deceased Farrah Tayyaba, who was married with the petitioner on 12-5-2004 and no issue was born from that wedlock. Thereafter Mst. Farrah Tayyaba was murdered on 15-6-2004. It is alleged that the petitioner and Farrah Tayyaba deceased obtained an Insurance Policy under the Plan namely "Jewan Sathi" from respondents Nos. 3 to 5 vide policy No. 507564506-7 dated 31-12-1998. After issuance of the above-said "Jewan Sathi" Policy, the petitioner paid the entire premiums from his own pocket till the death of his wife Mst. Farrah Tayyaba deceased. After death of the wife of the petitioner, the insurance claim matured and being survivor of the spouse of the petitioner was entitled to get the claim from respondents Nos. 3 to 5 under the terms and conditions of "Jewan Sathi" Plan. It is also stated that the present petitioner approached respondents Nos. 3 to 5 for claiming his claim but in the meanwhile, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed the civil suit claiming therein that Farrah Tayyaba was the claimant of the insurance, therefore they being the father and mother of the deceased are entitled to get the share from the insurance amount. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the insurance claim is not a legacy (Turka) of the deceased because terms and conditions of the insurance policy were that the insurance claim will be given to the survivor. Keeping in view the divergent pleadings of the parties learned trial court framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. (2) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD. (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD. (4) Whether the suit has been improperly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD. (5) Whether the suit has been filed just to cause harassment to defendant? OPD. (6) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD. (7) Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.? OPD. After recording oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 vide judgment and decree 20-10-2010. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner filed an appeal which was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment and decree dated 19-4-2011, hence this civil revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are against the law and facts of the case; that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the file; that the impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below are contradictory in themselves; that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are against the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in PLD 1991 Supreme Court 731, as such, this civil revision be allowed, impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently opposed this civil revision and fully supported the impugned judgments and decrees. He has further contended that the impugned judgments and decrees are well reasoned and the learned courts have committed no illegality or irregularity in delivering the same, therefore, this civil revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard. Record perused.

7. The only question which is to be answered by this Court is as to whether the petitioner is exclusively entitled to receive the amount of life insurance policy and the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to have any share in the said claim. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has duly been considered by a subsequent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Mst. Ameeran Khatoon Versus Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others (2005 SCMR 512). The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-- "The above question has already been answered by this Court in the judgment reported in the case referred to hereinabove. Relevant para. therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience. Applying above test on the facts of instant case we are persuaded to hold that deceased Muhammad Ayub was not entitled for the Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance during his life time and on the death, such amounts shall be deemed to be owned by him. Thus they will devolve upon his legal heirs being his 'Tarka'. Therefore, petitioner would not be entitled exclusively to claim these amounts except to the extent of her entitlement as per Shariat with other legal heirs of the deceased as it has been held by this Court in the case of Mst. Amtul Habib and others v. Mst. Musarrat Parveen and others PLD 1974 SC 185".

8. In view of the facts of the present case the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to have their share in the claim of life insurance policy of the deceased namely Farrah Tayyaba in accordance with their share. The courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned judgments and decrees and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading and non-reading of evidence or any jurisdictional defect which could be interfered by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this civil revision being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. AG/M-71/L Revision dismissed.