1982 PLP 456 (CLC)

Sardar Altaf Hussain for Petitioners. Y ,y Islam Ali Qureshi for Respondent. This is a revision petition tiled by Muhammad Amin and others; petitioners, against the judgment of an Additional District Judge of Dera Ghazi Khan, dated 10‑8‑1980, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. Earlier, a Civil Judge of Jampur, by his judgment, dated 2‑1‑1980, had decreed the suit of Ghaus Bakhsh, respondent, for possession through pre‑emption of the disputed land situate in Mauza Patti Machhi, Tebsil Jampur, District Dera Ghazi Khan.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the lower Courts did not correctly decide Issue No. 9 as Ghaus Bakhsh respondent/plaintiff claimed to be the son of Ahmad Bakhsh, yet mutations Nos. 281 and 236, dated 25‑4‑1962 and 4‑11‑1976 respectively showed that one Ghaus Bakhsh son of Rahim Bakhsh inherited land of Mst. Bhairo widow of Rahim Bakhsh.

3. In the plaint relating to the suit for pre‑emption, Ghaus Bakhsh is shown as son of Ahmad Bakhsh. In his evidence, he clearly mentioned that he was the son of Mst. Bhairo. Muhammad Amin, petitioner/defendant, in his evidence also clearly mentioned that Ghaus Bakhsb, respondent/ plaintiff, was the son of Ahmad Bakhsh and not of Rahim Bakhsh and that Mst. Bhairo was the widow of Rahim Bakhsh. In cross‑examination he stated that he did not know whether Mst. Bhairo, after the death of Ahmad Bakhsh, had married Rahim Bakhsh or that Ghaus Bakhsh, respondent/plaintiff, was the son of Mst. Bhairo. In view of the statement itself made by Ghaus Bakhsh, respondent/plaintiff, that he was the son of Mst. Bhairo, which has not been disproved by any evidence led‑ in rebuttal it appears that he is the son of Ahmad Bakhsh out of Mst. Bhairo and that his mother, after the death of his father, re Parried Rahim Bakhsh. It is true that in inheritance Mutation No. 281 dated 25‑4‑1962 (Exh. P. 11) relating to Mst. Bhairo's land in Mauza Darkhasat lamal Khan Chak Janoobi, Ghaus Bakhsh, respondent/plaintiff, is shown as being the son of Rahim Bakhsh, but this is perhaps due to the fact that his mother Mst. Bhairo was last married to Rahim B3khsh his stepfather. There cannot be any doubt that the identity of Ghaus Bakhsh, respondent/ plaintiff vis‑a‑vis the suit is not in doubt. This is also clear from the evidence which has been recorded. On the evidence, both the lower Court answered Issue No. 9 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. There being concurrent findings of two Courts below on the said issue, no interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for.

4. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.