Second wife children got share in property.
 |
| 2nd wife children got share in property |
1۔ مطلقہ بیوہ کی وراثت اور منسوخ شدہ ایکس پارٹے ڈگری کی بنیاد پر میوٹیشن
(CR No.72-D-2014/BWP، فیصلہ مؤرخہ 07.02.2014)
2۔ فریقین
درخواست گزاران: مسز صدیقہ بیگم وغیرہ
مدعا علیہان: صوبہ پنجاب وغیرہ
3۔ مقدمے کا پس منظر
(ا) چراغ محمد دو رہائشی پلاٹس اور زرعی زمین کا مالک تھا۔
(ب) اس کا انتقال 07.06.1962 کو ہوا۔
(ج) اس کی وراثت بذریعہ میوٹیشن نمبر 43 اور 115 درج ذیل ورثاء میں تقسیم ہوئی:
(ا) بیٹے،
(ب) بیوہ مسز بشیراں بی بی،
(ج) بیوہ مست باسو مائی۔
(د) مست باسو مائی نے پہلے شوہر کے انتقال کے بعد چراغ محمد سے دوسرا نکاح کیا تھا۔
(ہ) اس نکاح سے کوئی اولاد نہ ہوئی، تاہم پہلے شوہر سے اس کے بچے موجود تھے۔
4۔ تنازعہ کی بنیاد
(ا) چراغ محمد کے بیٹوں نے یہ مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ:
(ا) مست باسو مائی کو چراغ محمد نے اپنی زندگی میں طلاق دے دی تھی،
(ب) اس لیے وہ وراثت کی حقدار نہیں تھیں۔
(ب) اسی بنیاد پر انہوں نے میوٹیشن نمبر 115 کو چیلنج کیا۔
(ج) یہ دعویٰ 1973 میں ایکس پارٹے طور پر منظور ہوا۔
5۔ ایکس پارٹے ڈگری اور اس کے نتائج
(ا) 26.06.1973 کی ایکس پارٹے ڈگری کی بنیاد پر:
میوٹیشن نمبر 168 منظور کی گئی۔
(ب) اس میوٹیشن کے ذریعے مست باسو مائی کو وراثت سے خارج کر دیا گیا۔
(ج) تاہم بعد ازاں:
(ا) ایکس پارٹے ڈگری 28.05.1974 کو کالعدم قرار دے دی گئی،
(ب) اور اصل دعویٰ 03.09.1974 کو عدم پیروی کی بنیاد پر خارج ہو گیا۔
6۔ مدعا علیہان (باسو مائی کے ورثاء) کا دعویٰ
(ا) باسو مائی کے بیٹے اور بیٹیوں نے نیا دعویٰ دائر کیا۔
(ب) مؤقف یہ اختیار کیا کہ:
(ا) متنازعہ میوٹیشن نمبر 168
(ب) ایک کالعدم ایکس پارٹے ڈگری پر مبنی ہے،
(ج) لہٰذا یہ غیر قانونی، باطل اور ناقابلِ نفاذ ہے۔
(ج) انہوں نے ملکیت اور قبضہ برقرار رکھنے کی استدعا کی۔
7۔ ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلیٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے
(ا) ٹرائل کورٹ نے دعویٰ منظور کر لیا۔
(ب) اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے بھی فیصلہ برقرار رکھا۔
(ج) عدالتوں نے قرار دیا کہ:
(ا) باسو مائی قانونی بیوہ تھیں،
(ب) وہ وراثت کی مکمل حقدار تھیں،
(ج) اور ان کا حصہ درست طور پر منتقل ہوا۔
8۔ ہائی کورٹ میں ریوژن کے نکات
(ا) درخواست گزاران نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ:
(ا) باسو مائی مطلقہ تھیں،
(ب) نچلی عدالتوں نے شواہد کا غلط جائزہ لیا،
(ج) مقدمہ مدت سے باہر تھا۔
9۔ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا عدالتی تجزیہ
(ا) عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ:
(ا) باسو مائی کی بطور بیوہ وراثت ثابت شدہ ہے،
(ب) ایکس پارٹے ڈگری کالعدم ہو چکی تھی،
(ج) اس بنیاد پر کی گئی میوٹیشن خود بخود گر جاتی ہے۔
(ب) نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے:
(ا) شواہد پر مبنی،
(ب) قانونی،
(ج) اور معقول تھے۔
10۔ اصولِ ریوژن (Section 115 CPC)
(ا) ریوژن میں مداخلت صرف اس صورت ممکن ہے جب:
(ا) دائرہ اختیار کا غلط استعمال ہو،
(ب) یا واضح قانونی بے قاعدگی ہو۔
(ب) محض متبادل تشریح یا دوبارہ حقائق کا جائزہ
ریوژن کا جواز نہیں بنتا۔
11۔ حتمی حکم
(ا) لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
(ا) مست باسو مائی کا وراثتی حصہ قانونی تھا،
(ب) نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے درست تھے۔
(ب) لہٰذا:
سول ریوژن خارج (dismissed in limine) کر دی گئی۔
12۔ اصولِ قانون
(ا) کالعدم ایکس پارٹے فیصلے کی بنیاد پر کی گئی میوٹیشن برقرار نہیں رہ سکتی۔
(ب) بیوہ، خواہ دوسری شادی سے ہو، شوہر کی وفات کے وقت بیوی ہو تو وراثت کی حقدار ہوتی ہے۔
(ج) ہم وقت فیصلوں میں ریوژن میں مداخلت غیر معمولی صورت میں ہی ممکن ہے۔
**مدعا، جواب اور حکم:**
**مدعا:**
مست سادیکہ بیگم اور دیگر (درخواست گزار) نے ایک سول ریوژن دائر کی، جو کہ 23 ستمبر 2010 کو سول جج اول کلاس بہاولپور کی جانب سے دیے گئے فیصلے اور 17 دسمبر 2013 کو ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج بہاولپور کی جانب سے اپیل مسترد کرنے کے فیصلے کے خلاف تھی۔ اصل مدعا یہ تھا کہ چیراغ محمد کی جائیداد میں سے مست باسو مائی کا حصہ غیر قانونی اور جعلی تھا کیونکہ ان پر طلاق کے الزامات لگائے گئے تھے۔
**جواب:**
جواب دہندگان (چیراغ محمد کے ورثاء) نے دعویٰ کیا کہ مست باسو مائی کو چیراغ محمد کی جائیداد میں سے حصہ دینے کے فیصلے کو ان کے طلاق یافتہ ہونے کی بنا پر چیلنج کیا گیا تھا۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ چیراغ محمد کی زندگی میں مست باسو مائی کو طلاق دے دی گئی تھی، اس لیے وہ ان کی جائیداد کی وراثت کی حقدار نہیں تھیں۔
**حکم:**
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ریوژن کو مسترد کر دیا۔ عدالت نے اس بات کی تصدیق کی کہ زیربحث جائیداد میں مست باسو مائی کا حصہ قانونی تھا کیونکہ اصل ججمنٹ (جو کہ ناقابل قبول قرار دی گئی تھی) کی بنیاد پر جو تبدیلیاں کی گئی تھیں، وہ غلط تھیں۔ عدالت نے بتایا کہ lower courts کے فیصلے درست تھے اور ان میں کوئی قانونی یا فکری غلطیاں نہیں تھیں۔ اس لیے، درخواست گزار کی ریوژن مسترد کر دی گئی۔
Must read Judgement
Form No.HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH,
BAHAWALPUR.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Mst. Sadiqa Begum etc.
Vs
The Province of Punjab etc.
CR. No.72-D-2014/BWP
JUDGMENT
Date of
hearing:
07.02.2014
Appellant by:
Jam Muhammad Sajjad, Advocate
Respondent by: -
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, J. The instant Civil
Revision has been filed by the present petitioners against
the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2010 passed by the
Civil Judge Ist Class, Bahawalpur according to which
declaratory suit of respondents was decreed and against the
judgment and decree dated 17.12.2013 passed by
Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur according to which
appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that one Chiragh
Muhammad was owner in possession of two residential
plots and agricultural land falling in Killa Nos.13/3, 14/2,
15/8, 16/1, 17/1 & 25/1 Square No.35, Khewat Nos.11, 12
& 31, situated at Chak No.5/DNB, Tehsil Yazman, District
Bahawalpur. He died on 07.06.1962 and as a consequence
whereof the said property was mutated in favour of
Muhammad Siddique deceased (the predecessor in interest
of present petitioners No.1 to 6), Muhammad Sharif
petitioner No.7(sons), Mst. Bashiran Bibi deceased
(predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.7 to 13) and
Mst. Basso Mai deceased (the predecessors-in-interest of
respondents No.6 and 14) widows of Chiragh Muhammad
deceased being legal heirs through mutations No.43 & 115
dated 19.11.1962).
3.
In fact, upon death of her previous husband namely
Jewa, Mst. Basso had contracted second marriage with
Chiragh Muhammad (hereinafter called the original owner)
P
2
but out of this wedlock no issue was born. However, she
was survived with Nazir Ahmad (son), Mst. Zenab Bibi,
Mst. Raheem Bibi (daughters) from previous husband
namely Jewa (original plaintiffs of the instant suit). Mst.
Basso died on 15.03.1985, therefore, the share having been
devolved upon her from the estate of the original owner
was mutated through mutations No.422 and 423 in favour
of her said son and daughters accordingly (being her legal
heirs). Muhammad Sharif S/O Mst. Basso Mai already
died unmarried and thus was succeeded by the said Nazeer
Ahmad, Mst. Zenab Bibi (since died) and Mst. Raheem
Bibi.
4.
The predecessors-in-interest of
petitioners
(Muhammad Siddique) and Muhammad Sharif sons of
Chiragh Muhammad filed a suit for declaration challenging
therein vires of mutation No.115 dated 19.11.1962 on the
grounds that the original owner in his life had divorced
Mst. Basso, therefore, she was not entitled to get anything
from his estate. It was once decreed ex-parte on
26.06.1973 but subsequently the said decree was set aside
on 28.05.1974 by accepting application for setting aside exparte
decree moved by Mst. Basso Mai
Wd/O Chiragh Muhammad and later on the suit was also
dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.09.1974. However, in
the meanwhile, the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners
had got sanctioned mutation No.168 dated 11.12.1973 on
the basis of the ex-parte decree dated 26.06.1973 (which
ex-parte decree was subsequently set aside) as a result
whereof Mst. Basso stood excluded from array of the legal
heirs of the original owner and the whole disputed estate
came in their hands.
5.
Nazir Ahmad (son), Mst. Zenab Bibi and Mst.
Raheem Bibi (daughters) of Mst. Basso Mai filed a suit for
declaration with injunction as consequential relief on the
grounds that they are still owners in possession of the
disputed property and mutation No.168 dated 11.12.1973
CR No.72-D-2014/BWP
3
(hereinafter called the impugned mutation) and the
subsequent entries incorporated in the revenue record were
collusive, fraudulent, null, void, against law and the facts
and inoperative upon their rights but the said petitioners
were adamant to deny their title, disturb their possession
and to alienate the disputed property without any
justification.
6.
The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners put
their appearance in the suit. They submitted a written
statement controverting therein the assertions and denying
the allegations as contained in the plaint. The stance of the
predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had been that
Mst. Basso was divorced by the original owner (their
father) in his life and thus was not entitled to inherent
anything from his estate. Therefore, mutations No.43 and
115 sanctioned in this regard were against law and the
facts. They also denied possession of the contesting
respondents qua the disputed land. Preliminary objections
like, lack of cause of action, limitation, unclean hands, nonmaintainability and frivolousness of the suit were also
raised.
7.
Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties
following issues were framed by the trial court:-
ISSUES
1.
Whether the plaintiffs are owners in
possession of the suit land being the legal heirs
of Mst. Basso and mutation No.168 dated
11.12.1973 is illegal, void and ineffective to
the rights of plaintiff and plaintiffs are entitled
to get decree as prayed for? OPP
2.
Whether the deceased Chiragh Muhammad
had divorced Mst. Basso and she was not
entitled to get any share from his inheritance
as widow? OPD
3.
Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action
and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
4.
Whether the defendants are entitled to get
special costs under section 35-A CPC? OPD
CR No.72-D-2014/BWP
4
5.
Relief.
8.
After completion of the trial learned trial court heard
the arguments and after hearing the parties decreed the suit
of the respondents vide judgment and decree dated
23.09.2010 and appeal was preferred by the present
petitioner which too was dismissed by the lower appellate
court vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2013.
9.
Hence, this Civil Revision.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
both the judgments and decrees of the trial court are against
law and facts on the file and are liable to be set aside. It is
submitted that Exh.D1 is an admissible document but the
courts below did not consider the same. It is submitted that
suit of the respondents was time barred and in this respect
neither issue was framed nor both the courts below have
attended this legal point. It is lastly submitted that
plaintiffs/respondents have failed to prove their case which
is liable to be dismissed.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and perused the record.
12. It is admitted fact that Mst. Basso Mai the
predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents
contracted second marriage with Chiragh Muhammad
original owner of the suit property after the death of her
previous husband namely Jewa. It is also admitted fact that
Chiragh Muhammad original owner of the suit property
was died in the year 1962 whereas Mst. Basso Mai died in
the year 1985 and inheritance mutation of Chiragh
Muhammad was sanctioned in which Mst. Basso Mai also
inherited the property being widow of Chiragh Muhammad.
Likewise, relationship of the contesting respondents with
Mst. Basso Mai is not disputed and they are entitled to
inherit estate of Mst. Basso Mai upon her death. It is also
established on the record that prior to instant litigation
Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Sharif sons of
CR No.72-D-2014/BWP
5
Chiragh Muhammad original owner of the suit property had
instituted a suit for declaration and cancellation of the
inheritance mutation to the extent of Mst. Basso Mai in the
year 1972 with the assertion that Mst. Basso Mai was
divorcee and was not entitled to inherit the property left by
Chiragh Muhammad which suit was decreed ex-parte but
on filing of an application by Mst. Basso Mai for setting
aside ex-parte decree, the judgment and decree dated
26.06.1973 were aside which are Exh.P9 and Exh.P10.
Exh.P12 further reveals that the said suit thereafter was
dismissed for non prosecution on 03.09.1974. Disputed
mutation was sanctioned on the basis of ex-parte judgment
and decree dated 26.06.1973. The said judgment and
decree was set aside by the trial court on 28.05.1974 by
accepting the application of Mst. Basso Mai for setting
aside ex-parte decree and thereafter suit filed by
Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Sharif (sons of
Chiragh Muhammad original owner) was dismissed due to
non prosecution on 03.09.1974. As the disputed mutation
was sanctioned on the basis of ex-parte judgment and
decree dated 26.06.1973 and above stated suit after setting
aside ex-parte judgment and decree was dismissed due to
non prosecution on 03.09.1974 and present petitioners did
not challenge the dismissal order of the suit till today and
superstructure of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated
26.06.1973 i.e. disputed mutation is liable to be demolished
as foundation i.e. ex-parte judgment and decree dated
26.06.1973 on which basis the disputed mutation was
sanctioned, had been set aside. So in view of above it is
clear that inheritance mutations of Chiragh Muhammad
were rightly sanctioned in which Mst. Basso Mai
predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents had
inherited suit property as widow of Chiragh Muhammad
which was never challenged by the present petitioners after
dismissal of their suit on 03.09.1974 in which they had
challenged the above stated inheritance mutations on the
CR No.72-D-2014/BWP
6
ground that Mst. Basso Mai was divorced by the original
owner in his lifetime (Chiragh Muhammad). Both the
judgments and decrees of the courts below are not the result
of misreading or non reading of evidence and both the
courts below have discussed every piece of evidence
produced by the parties during the trial and impugned
judgments and decrees of courts below are neither perverse
nor illegal and learned counsel for the petitioner has not
pointed out any illegality in the judgments and decrees of
the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not
point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the
judgments of the courts below warranting no inference by
this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed
to point out any misreading or non reading in the evidence.
Concurrent findings of the facts of the courts below if based
on proper appreciation of evidence, could not be interfered
in such jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction can be
exercised in case of non assumption, illegal assumption or
exercise of jurisdiction, illegality or with material
irregularity. Reliance is placed on case titled “Cantt.
Board through Executive Officer Cantt. Board Rawalpindi
VS. Ikhlaq Ahmad and others” 2014 SCMR 161 in which
august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:
“It is not the requirement of law that the High
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to
discuss the findings recorded by the courts below
on each issue, particularly when it concurs with
them. The scope of revision is narrow and
requires the High Court to examine whether the
courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction so
vested in them or have acted in exercise of its
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity
and have misread the evidence brought on record
by the parties. In other words, the provisions of
section 115, CPC under which a High Court
exercises its revisional jurisdiction, confer an
exceptional and necessary power intended to
CR No.72-D-2014/BWP
7
secure effective exercise of its superintendence
and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by
technicalities. The revisional jurisdiction of the
High Court cannot be invoked against conclusions
of law or fact, which do not, in any way, affect the
jurisdiction of the court. In the instant case, the
learned High Court, in law, could not have
investigated into the facts or exercised its
jurisdiction on the basis of facts or grounds, which
were already proved by the parties by leading
evidence. We are of the considered view that the
judgment impugned in these proceedings is
unexceptionable. The learned High Court was
justified is not interfering in the concurrent
findings of fact which were based on the material
brought on record and proper appreciation of
evidence.”
13. For the foregoing reasons, the instant civil revision
has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
(Sadaqat Ali Khan)
Judge
M.Afzal
APPROVED FOR REPORTING