1990 PLP 1835 (CLC)

(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring this suit? OPP. (4) Whether the suit is time‑barred? OPD. (5) Whether the suit is collusive? OPD (6) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD (7) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and no locus standi? OPD. (8) Whether the description of the suit land is incorrect? OPD. (9) Relief. The plaintiffs/petitioners produced Mand Khan P.W.1 and Imam Din P.W.2. Faiz Ahmad, one of the plaintiffs appeared as P.W.

3. They tendered copy of Khasra Girdawari EX.Pl and copy of mutation Ex.P2 in evidence. In rebuttal Mst. Faizan defendant/respondent appeared as P.W.3. The defendants produced Khurshid D.W.1 and Maqsood D.W.2. They tendered copy of mutation Ex.D1, copy of pedigree‑table Ex.D2, copy of the order of ADC (C) dated 1‑1‑1986 Ex.D4, Copy of Khatuni Ex.D5, copy of Jamabandi Ex.D

6. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the defendants decided not to press issues No.2, 5, 6 and

8. Finding the remaining issues against the plaintiffs, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 13‑6‑1988. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan on 24‑1‑1990. Hence this revision.

2. Challenging the findings of the Courts below on issues Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Mst. Fai7an, daughter of Rafi Muhammad, had in reality died in India and was not alive at the time of the attestation of the mutation of inheritance in the year 1955; that Amanat Ali respondent fraudulently and collusively got mutation of inheritance attested in favour of his wife Mst. Fazeelat showing her as Mst. Faizan, the daughter of Rafi Muhammad; that it was at the time of consolidation proceedings that the petitioners came to know of the fraud committed by Amanat Ali, so they filed suit for declaration within 6 years of their knowledge and as such, the suit was not barred by time; that Mst. Mamman and Mst. Tumman petitioners are pardah observing ladies, whereas Faiz and Ghafoor petitioners were minors in the year 1956, so they were not aware of attestation of mutation in favour of the wife of Amanat Ali respondent and as soon as they came to know of the fraud committed by Amanat Ali they filed suit for declaration. So it cannot be said that they were estopped by their conduct to challenge the mutation of inheritance; that the P.Ws. are interested whereas the D.Ws are quite independent witnesses; that the P.Ws being not related to the families of the parties were not competent witnesses; to prove the relationship of Mst. Faizan with Rafi Muhammad deceased, and that the findings of the Courts below on issue No.1 suffer from misreading/non reading of the evidence.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. The question as to whether or not Mst. Faizan respondent is the daughter of Rafi Muhammad deceased is a question of fact. After applying their conscious mind to the reliable relevant evidence, both the Courts below have concurrently found her to be the daughter of Rafi Muhammad deceased. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non‑reading of material evidence by the Courts below. There is nothing on record to show that Faiz Muhammad and Ghafoor were minors at the time of attestation of mutation. The mutation of inheri tance was subsequently implemented in Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri. Feeling dissatisfied with the quality of the land given to her in consolidation proceedings, Mst Faizan respondent filed appeal against the petitioner before Collector Consolidation Multan, which was accepted on 13‑1‑1985. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed second appeal against the order of the Collector Consolidation before Additional Commissioner (C), Multan. The appeal was accepted and fresh adjustment in the wandas of the parties was made keeping in view the entitlement of the parties over the disputed land. It is worth notice that the petitioners did not raise any objection during the proceedings before Collector Consolidation and Additional Commissioner (C) that Mst. Faizan, daughter of Rafi Muhammad had died in India or that Mst. Faizan alias Fazeelat, wife of Amanat Ali respondent was not the daughter of Rafi Muhammad deceased. Strangely enough, it was after 31 years of the attestation of the mutation of inheritance in favour of the respondent that they for the first time came out with the plea that Mst. Faizan, daughter of Rafi Muhammad had died in India and Mst. Faizan respondent was not his daughter and that mutation in favour of Mst. ‑Faizan respondent was fictitiously, fraudulently and collusively sanctioned in her favour. For all these reasons, I am convinced that no exception can be taken to the findings of the Courts below on the disputed issues. The impugned judgments do not suffer from illegality/irregularity or jurisdictional A defect. The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑2176/L Revision dismissed