1994 PLP 1975 (SCMR)

Sh. Muhammad Asadullah, Advocate Supreme Court and MA Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 14th May, 1994. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Hakim Ali and others, the successors‑in‑interest of Nawab Din deceased and others, call in question the judgment dated 27‑3‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby Civil Revision No. 205/82 filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 6‑1‑1982 of the District Judge, Faisalabad dismissing their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13‑9‑1979 of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents, was dismissed. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Bagh and others, respondents herein, filed a suit for declaration that they are owners to the extent of one‑third share in the land described in the heading of the plaint, on the basis of registered will deed dated 18‑7‑1960 on behalf of Mst. Fateh Bibi in favour of Noor Din, respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest and that Mutation No. 1092 attested on 30‑9‑1973 and 1166 attested on 4‑9‑1974 are wrong, illegal, collusive and fraudulent and are not binding on the plaintiffs/respondents. The defendants/petitioners contested the suit and in their written statement raised several pleas, both technical and factual. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues in the, case were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded, and the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13‑9‑1979, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. The appeal filed against it by the defendants/petitioners was dismissed vide judgment dated 6‑1‑1982 by the learned District Judge, Faisalabad and so was the revision petition through the impugned judgment. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal. We have heard Sh. Muhammad Asadullah, Advocate, for the petitioners; Mr. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate, for the respondent 1; and have perused the record of the case. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to establish that Mst. Fateh Bibi, the executant of registered will deed, was a limited owner and consequently, not competent to alienate the property in any way. There is abundant evidence on the file which has been relied upon by all the three Courts below to the effect that she was full owner of the property left by her in India and in lieu thereof she was transferred ownership rights in the suit land by the Settlement authorities. This fact is admitted by Noor Ahmed D.W. which admission is binding on the petitioners. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, on the appraisal of the evidence produced in the case, concurrently held as a fact that Mst. Fateh Bibi was full owner of the property and entitled to make a will to the extent of one‑third share. The authenticity of the will deed, being a registered one, cannot be doubted. The High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction discussed the entire evidence produced in the case to verify the allegations of the counsel for the petitioners of misreading and non‑reading of evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no misreading or non‑reading of evidence and the factual finding of the two Courts below did not call for interference. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not convince us about any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the judgment of the lower forums. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. A.A./N‑386/S Leave refused.