P L D 2014 Peshawar 21 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge-III/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Swat dated 11-6-2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge-IV/Illaqa Qazi, Swat dated 15-9-2012, was dismissed.

2. Brief but necessary facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that respondents Nos.2 and 3/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction in respect of a house fully mentioned in the head-note of the plaint. In prayer 'Jeem' of the plaint, they sought recovery of maintenance Rs.6000 @ Rs.2000/- per month. It is averred in the plaint that that respondents/plaintiffs are parents of petitioners and respondent No.1 and are old age; that petitioner No.1 being disobedient has made their lives miserable by torturing them for which they had also lodged a complaint to the D.P.O. concerned; that the attitude of petitioner No.1 is humiliating towards them and they cannot bear him furthermore in their house.

3. The respondents/defendants contested the suit by submitting their separate written statements and raised preliminary objections and also controverted the averments of plaint. On the divergence of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues: The parties produced their evidence as they wished and after conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 15-9-2012.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the petitioners/defendants preferred an appeal before District Judge, Swat, who entrusted the same to Additional District Judge-III/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Swat. The learned appellate Court after hearing the learned counsel for parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 11-6-2013. Hence, instant revision petition.

5. Mr. Fayyaz Muhammad Qazi, the learned counsel for petitioners contended that judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are against law and material available on file and are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that by discarding the sale deed dated 24-9-1999, both the Courts have drawn erroneous assumption and fallen into an error of law and thereby committed illegalities.

6. Arguments heard and available record perused.

7. The petitioners and respondents Nos.2 and 3 are sons, father, mother inter se. Admittedly, respondents/plaintiffs are original owners of the house in question. The plaintiff while recording evidence, narrated the same facts averred in the plaint and specifically denied the existence of any deed in favour of petitioners. He exhibited complaint to D.P.O. against petitioner son. That portion of statement of plaintiff was not put to cross-examination by the petitioners/defendants. The petitioners mainly focused their defence on the unregistered deed dated 24-9-1999 and alleged that the portion of the house consisted of three shops, stairs and room on upper storey, were transferred by respondent father in favour of petitioner No.1 through 'Tamleek'. To prove the alleged deed petitioner/defendant produced Obedullah scribe as DW-4 and Abdul Ghaffar Notary Public as DW-6, but same could not be proved in accordance with law, because the scribe of the deed has stated that neither it was a sale deed, nor a gift deed. Similarly, DW-6, Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, advocate admitted in his cross-examination that neither he had entered the contents of the deed in his record i.e. Exh.DW 6/1, nor obtained signatures of the marginal witnesses on the same. The other marginal witness Abdullah Jan was not produced as witness to testify the genuineness of the deed. Respondent/defendant Khadim Muhammad as DW-2, also supported the contention of respondents/plaintiffs.

8. As stated above, respondent Fazal Muhammad is owner of the house in question, inasmuch as he along with his wife is looking after the petitioners and respondent Khadim Muhammad from their childhood and now have reached to their extreme age. Respondents/plaintiffs proved their claim by producing reliable, cogent, and convincing evidence, which cannot be brushed aside.

9. As regards to question of maintenance, admittedly, the respondents/plaintiffs, being parents, have taken many pains in looking after the petitioners/defendants and now they have reached to such an age that they cannot earn their livelihood and according to law and Shariah, the adult offspring are bound to maintain their parents. In this regard, verses Nos.23 and 24 of Surah Bani Israil of Quran Majid is reproduced herein below: In this context, the Hadiths are quoted below, wherein our beloved Prophet Sallah Ho Aleh Wasallam said that: From the above-quoted Verses of Quran and Hadiths, one can easily imagine and understand the respect of parents, as no leniency has been shown in our Religion with regard to the respect of parents.

10. The learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs which was upheld by the learned appellate Court. The concurrent findings of facts of Courts below are well-reasoned and well-founded. Even otherwise, revisional jurisdiction is meant for correction of jurisdictional error and material illegalities or irregularities and in absence thereof, the concurrent findings cannot be interfered with. Reliance can be placed on 2012 SCMR 730 "Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Muhammad" and 2012 SCMR 685 "Mst. Rehana Zeb v. Dr. Matwarra Hussain and others". No misreading, non-reading, or unlawful exercise of jurisdiction could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition being meritless, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. AG/518/P Revision dismisse