2022 PLP 1794 (MLD)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, CJ.

The instant Revision Petition is directed by the Petitioners/ defendants against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned two Courts below vide their judgments and decrees dated 11-9-2020 and 20-4-2019 respectively, whereby the suit of Plaintiffs/ Respondents Nos.1 and 2 was decreed against the petitioners/ defendants.

2. Short facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that Plaintiffs/ Respondents Nos.1 and 2 had instituted a civil suit against the Petitioners/ Defendants for declaration and consequential relief to the effect that Plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 and 2 are real daughters/ legal heirs of their father namely Syed Sajjad Ali Shah (late). Being LRs of late Syed Sajjad Ali Shah Plaintiffs are entitled to the legacy left by their father as mentioned in the head note of the plaint. Plaintiffs/ respondents Nos.1 and 2 further maintained that suit land is in possession of the defendants/ petitioners, which is illegal and against the Islamic law. Further that defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.7 had sold out two Kanals and 3 Marks land to Defendants/present respondents Nos.4 and 5 which has no legal effect on the rights of plaintiffs/respondents. Present petitioners/defendants had denied the claim and to hand over the sharai share of the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 and 2, hence, the plaintiffs/ respondents had instituted Civil Suit before the learned trial Court.

3. The suit was hotly contested by the petitioners/ defendants except present respondent No.3/defendant No.8 by filing their written statement by raising many legal and factual objections which gave rise to the framing of as many as 11 issues including issue of relief.

4. The learned trial Court after recoding evidence pro and contra evidence and after hearing the parties in the light of material available on record decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs/ respondents against the present petitioners/ defendants. Being dis-content with the impugned judgment / decree dated 20-4-2019 passed by the learned trial Court Petitioners/ defendants preferred Civil first Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, which also met the same fate. Being dis-satisfied from the said judgment/ decree passed by the learned first appellate Court Gilgit, present petitioners/ defendants filed the instant Civil Revision before this Court.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that initially respondent No.3/ defendant No.8 was arrayed as plaintiff No.1 but later on she was transposed from plaintiff to Proforma defendant No.8 by the learned trial Court.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the record available on file.

6. It is admitted position in the case that the suit land/ property mentioned in the head note of the plaint is Estate of father of present petitioners/ defendants and present respondents Nos.1 and

2. It is proved on record that the plaintiffs/respondents are Legal heirs of late Syed Sajjad Ali Shah. Plaintiffs/respondent being LRs of late Syed Sajjad Ali Shah and real sisters of present petitioners/defendants are entitled to inherit their due Sharai share in the legacy of late Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, (father of the plaintiffs/respondents) and they were deprived from their sharai shares. Under the law of Shariah on the death of a Muslim his property is distributed amongst his legal heirs according to their Sharai Shares. Parties were followers of Islam and it is held in Muslim personal law (Shariat) that the inheritance left by the deceased would be deemed to have devolved on the date of death of last male owner on all his legal heirs who were in existence at the time of his death and would be deemed to have become joint owners under the law of Shariah. Plaintiffs/ respondents have successfully proved their suit through reliable oral as well as documentary evidence but the Petitioners/ defendants have badly failed to prove the gift-deed by producing any reliable evidence and no entry has been made in the Revenue Record in favour of the Petitioners/ defendants on the basis of said gift-deed, as suck the learned Courts below have rightly discarded the contention of the petitioners/ defendants. This Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent finding of facts recorded by courts below. No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned judgments rendered by the courts below warranting interference of this court in revisional jurisdiction. Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below are not open to exception unless it is established that the same suffered from any jurisdictional defect/error or were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, which elements are conspicuously lacking in the present civil revision petition and the same are well reasoned based on law and facts and findings arrived by Courts below after validity analyzing facts and circumstances of the case. The two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners/ defendants resorting to the well established principle of appreciation of evidence which cannot be disturbed by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.

7. The nutshell of the above discussion is that, the instant petition has no merit, hence, dismissed in limine by upholding the judgments/ decrees of the learned two Courts below. No order as to costs. The instant civil revision petition along with Civil Miscellaneous Petition bearing No.639/2020 stand disposed-off accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record. SA/121/GB Petition dismissed.