2010 PLP 1784 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.

Through this civil revision the petitioner has assailed the order dated 3-1-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Chunian.

2. The facts are that a suit for declaration was filed by one Muhammad Ahmed against Muhammad Islam etc. claiming that he is the lessee of land measuring 22 Kanals detailed in the head note of plaint vide agreement of lease dated 7-3-1994 and the mutation of Tamleeq No.2447 is in violation of his rights under the lease agreement. The said suit was ex parte decreed on 21-9-1994. The respondents filed an appeal against the said decree. During the pendency of appeal one Muhammad Ibrahim filed an application for impleading as party to the appeal claiming that he is son of Fazal Din and is the real brother of Muhammad Ismail. The plaintiffs contested the application on the plea that Muhammad Ibrahim is not the real brother of Muhammad Ismail and is the son of the previous husband of her mother. Learned Appellate Court vide order dated 22-2-2009 relying on the copy of Khasra Girdawari and photo copy of N.I.C. allowed the application holding that Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Ismail were real brothers and both are sons of Fazal Din. The legal heirs of Muhammad Ismail assailed the said order before the Lahore High Court Lahore and the appeal Court set aside the order dated 22-2-2009 and directed that an issue be framed on the point for the resolution of parentage of Muhammad Ibrahim and as such the learned trial Court framed the issue as under:- "ISSUE. Whether Muhammad Ibrahim is real brother of Muhammad Ismail and thus is entitled to become a party?

3. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence both verbal as well as documentary. It is pertinent to mention here that Muhammad Ibrahim after filing an application also died and his legal heirs were impleaded party to the appeal. The photocopy of NIC Mark-A and B, death certificate Exhs. A-1 and A-2 were produced by the legal heirs of Muhammad Ibrahim R.W.1 one of the respondents appeared and produced Din Muhammad R.W.2 in support of his claim. Jamabandi Exh. R-1, copy of record of rights Exh.R-2 and Exh.R-3 were also placed on record. The N.I.C. of Muhammad Ibrahim issued on 31-3-1977 shows the name of his father as Fazal Din. The N.I.C. Mark-B was also issued on 31-3-1977 shows that Muhammad Ismail is the son of Fazal Din. Both the N.I.Cs. were issued on one day and parentage of both of holders of N.I.Cs. is the same. The death certificate of Muhammad Ismail also shows the name of his father as Fazal Din, likewise the death certificate of Muhammad Ibrahim also shows the name of his father as Fazal Din. The learned trial Court after going through the above said evidence came to the conclusion that Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Ismail were real brothers and allowed the application. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the N.I.C. is not a conclusive proof of the parentage of any person. The legal heirs of Muhammad Ibrahim should have produced some other cogent evidence which can negate the Jamabandi for the year, 1942-43. Jamabandi shows that Fazal Din died in India and the name of Muhammad Ibrahim is not mentioned in his mutation of inheritance.

4. The record shows that mutation as referred in Jamabandi has not been placed on record. The Jamabandi alone is not sufficient to establish the fact that only the persons named in the Jamabandi were legal heirs of deceased Fazal Din, but on the other hand two documents N.I.Cs. of both persons and death certificates of both brothers show the name of their father as Fazal Din. The legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Ismail themselves are admitting it as correct, it is not the case of the petitioners that the National Identity Card of Muhammad Ismail was got prepared by Muhammad Ibrahim, but their claim is that it is by chance that the name of father of Muhammad Ibrahim is Fazal Din but the said Fazal Din and the father of Muhammad Ismail are two different persons. There is no evidence available on record produced by either party about the identity of Fazal Din. There is also no evidence produced by both the parties on record showing that Muhammad Ibrahim was the son of earlier husband of the mother of Muhammad Ismail, rather the P.W. has deposed that he is not aware what is the name of Muhammad Ibrahim's real father. The Jamabandi produced by the petitioners bears no date of issuance, further, it is not explained on record when it came in the hands of petitioners as it is before the partition of India. From the available record it is proved that Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Ismail are two brothers and their father's name was Fazal Din.

5. In view of above, I am in full agreement with the findings of learned Courts below. The petitioner has failed to pinpoint any mis reading and non-reading of the record of the concurrent findings of the facts of two courts below.

6. In view of the above this petition fails and is dismissed. M.U.Y./M-327/L Revision Petition.