Inheritance | A son submitted a registered statement and a false death certificate of the father to claim the father's property alone.
 |
| A son submitted a registered statement and a false death certificate of the father to claim the father's property alone, but the High Court rejected his claim on the basis of contradiction and false documents and ordered the property to be distributed among the legal heirs. Civil Revision No.164468 of 2018 LHR |
یہاں کیس کے اہم نکات دیے گئے ہیں:
1. جائیداد کی نوعیت:
کیس منظور احمد اور اس کے دیگر رشتہ داروں کے درمیان والد کی جائیداد کی تقسیم کے متعلق تھا۔
2. منظور کا دعویٰ:
منظور احمد نے دعویٰ کیا کہ والد کی جائیداد اس کے نام کر دی گئی تھی، اور اس نے ایک مبینہ دستاویز (بیان حلفی) عدالت میں پیش کی۔
3. دستاویز کی صداقت:
منظور احمد نے جو بیان حلفی پیش کیا، اسے دیگر ورثاء نے جھوٹا اور جعلی قرار دیا۔
4. والد کا بیان:
منظور احمد کے والد کی طرف سے پیش کیا گیا بیان (بیان حلفی) رجسٹر تھا اور اسٹامپ پیپر پر تھا، جس پر اعتراض کیا گیا۔
5. ڈیتھ سرٹیفکیٹ:
منظور احمد کے والد کے ڈیتھ سرٹیفکیٹ کی تاریخ سے اختلاف پیدا ہوا، کیونکہ اصل تاریخ اور مقدمے میں پیش کی گئی تاریخ میں فرق تھا۔
6. جعلی دستاویز:
کیس میں جو دستاویز پیش کی گئی، اس پر اعتراض تھا کہ وہ جائیداد کی ملکیت کو ثابت نہیں کرتی اور جھوٹی تھی۔
7. فیصلہ:
عدالت نے منظور احمد کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا، کیونکہ پیش کی گئی دستاویزات میں تضاد تھا اور جھوٹ پر مبنی ہونے کی بناء پر کیس کمزور ثابت ہوا۔
8. ورثاء کی تعداد:
منظور احمد کے ساتھ دیگر بہن بھائی بھی جائیداد کے وارث تھے۔
9. رشتہ داروں کا موقف:
دوسرے رشتہ داروں نے منظور احمد کی دستاویزات اور دعوے کو چیلنج کیا اور کہا کہ تقسیم جائیداد قانونی طریقے سے ہونی چاہیے۔
10. کیس کا نتیجہ:
عدالت نے جھوٹے دستاویزات اور متنازعہ تاریخوں کی وجہ سے منظور احمد کا دعویٰ رد کر دیا اور جائیداد کو قانونی ورثاء میں تقسیم کرنے کا حکم دیا۔
یہ کیس منظور احمد کے والد کی جائیداد کی تقسیم سے متعلق ہے۔ منظور احمد نے دعویٰ کیا کہ جائیداد کا وارث وہ ہے، مگر دوسرے رشتہ داروں نے یہ دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ بھی قانونی طور پر وارث ہیں۔
منظور احمد نے ایک جھوٹی دستاویز پیش کی، جو جائیداد کے حوالے سے تھی، جبکہ والد کا بیان ان کے حق میں نہیں تھا۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی دیکھا کہ منظور احمد کے دعوے میں قانونی تقاضے پورے نہیں ہوئے۔ ان وجوہات کی بنیاد پر، عدالت نے منظور احمد کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا۔
دعوے کے ریجیکٹ ہونے کی چند اہم وجوہات یہ تھیں:
1. دستاویزات کی عدم صداقت: منظور احمد کی جانب سے پیش کردہ کچھ دستاویزات جھوٹی یا غلط ثابت ہوئیں، جس کی وجہ سے ان کا اعتبار ختم ہو گیا۔
2. وارثی حقوق کا تعین: دوسرے رشتہ داروں نے یہ ثابت کیا کہ وہ قانونی طور پر جائیداد کے حقیقی وارث ہیں، جو کہ منظور احمد کی دعوے کی بنیاد کو کمزور کرتا ہے۔
3. قانونی ضروریات کی عدم تکمیل: منظور احمد کا دعویٰ عدالت کے سامنے تمام ضروری قانونی تقاضوں کو پورا نہیں کرتا تھا، جیسے کہ ثبوتوں کی کمی یا شواہد کی عدم موجودگی۔
4. پیش کردہ بیان کی بنیاد: والد کے بیان کا معائنہ کرنے پر یہ واضح ہوا کہ یہ بیان دیگر وارثوں کے حق میں ہے، جو کہ منظور احمد کی دعوے کے خلاف گیا۔
ان وجوہات کی بنا پر عدالت نے منظور احمد کے دعوے کو مسترد کر دیا۔
Must read judgement
Stereo. HCJDA 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision No.164468 of 2018
Manzoor Ahmad
Versus
Chiragh Khan (deceased) through LRs.
=================================================
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing:
26.09.2024.
Petitioner by:-
Sahibzada Saleem Raza, Advocate.
Respondent No.1-A,B
by:-
Syed Afzal Haider, Advocate.
Respondents No.4 &
5 by:-
Mr. Ghulam Awais Ahmad Siddiqi, Advocate.
Respondents by:-
Mr. Muhammad Naeem Bhatti, Advocate.
CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J:-
Through this
civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the vires of
consolidated judgment & decree dated 17.10.2014 passed by
the learned Civil Judge, Kamalia whereby suit for declaration
filed by the petitioner was dismissed and suit for declaration
filed by respondents No.1 & 2 was decreed and also assailed
the judgment & decree dated 11.12.2017 passed by the
learned Addl. District Judge, Pir Mahal who dismissed the
appeal of the petitioner.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that Noora son of Makhna
had four real brothers namely Rustam, Muhammad, Fazil and
Jahana (issueless). Noora son of Makhna was married with
Mst. Sammo and from this wedlock a daughter Mst. Nooran only
was born. After death of Noora in the year 1940 his widow
Mst. Sammo contracted second marriage with Rustam, who
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
2
was real brother of Noora. From this wedlock of Mst.
Sammo with Rustam, Manzoor Ahmad was born; that Mst.
Nooran daughter of Noora was owner of property measuring
76-Kanals 16-Marlas comprising Khewat Nos.14 and 15
situated in Chak No.699/GB, Tehsil Kamalia. She died as
spinster (unmarried), and her inheritance mutation No.294
dated 20.07.2002 was sanctioned in favour of her uterine
brother Manzoor Ahmad. The other sons of Rustam from his
wedlock with Mst. Sattan namely Chiragh etc. (plaintiffs/
respondents No.1 and 2) filed a suit for declaration that the
plaintiff and defendant being sons of Rustam step father of
deceased Nooran Bibi are entitled to inherit share from her
estate and their names may also be incorporate in the revenue
record, whereas inheritance mutation No.294 dated
20.07.2002 of deceased Nooran, exclusively in favour of the
petitioner/defendant No.1 namely Manzoor Ahmad is against
the law and facts, based on fraud and same is ineffective
upon the rights of the plaintiffs and is liable to be cancelled.
Present petitioner/defendant No.1/Manzoor Ahmad
contested the said suit on factual and legal parlances as well
as filed suit for declaration with the assertion that Mst.
Nooran his real sister was owner of the suit property.
Petitioner/defendant being her real brother /the sole heir of
the deceased is owner of the said property as Mst. Nooran
died on 14.10.2001 after the death of plaintiffs father Rustam
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
3
on 09.06.2001,
but
Chiragh Khan etc.
the
respondents/plaintiffs got prepared a forged death certificate
of Nooran showing her date of death as 10.06.1998 just to
deprive the petitioner / defendant from his inherited land.
The adverse parties contested the suits of each other by filing
written statement by controverting the assertions of each
other on legal and factual judicial parlances. Both suits were
consolidated, accordingly issues were framed and the parties
lead their respective oral as well as documentary evidence.
The trial court vide consolidated judgment & decree dated
17.10.2014 decreed the suit of Chiragh Khan etc.
respondents No.1 & 2 as prayed for, whereas dismissed the
suit of the petitioner / Manzoor Ahmad. Against the said
judgment & decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal which
was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 11.12.2017 by
the appellate court. Hence, this civil revision.
3.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
4.
As both the divergent parties filed civil suit against
each other, thus for clarity Chiragh Khan and Zahoor Ahmad
respondent No.1 & 2 will be referred hereinafter as
respondents/ plaintiffs whereas Manzoor Ahmad will be
cited as petitioner/ defendant No.1.
5.
The main controversy involves in this lis is centered
upon issue Nos.1 to 3 which are reproduced as under:-
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
4
“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for
declaration regarding suit land, as prayed for in the plaint?
OPP
2. Whether the inheritance mutation No.294 dated
20.07.2002 is against the law and facts and is liable to be
set aside? OPP
3.
Whether Mst. Nooran daughter of Noora died on
14.10.2001 instead of 10.06.1998 and the death certificate
of said Nooran bearing date of her death on 10.06.1998 is
false, against the law, based on fraud and thus liable to be
cancelled? OPP”
Chiragh Khan etc., plaintiff/ respondents filed a suit for
declaration challenging therein the vires of inheritance
mutation No.294 dated 20.07.2002 with the assertion that
Mst. Nooran daughter of Noora died on 10.06.1998 and at
that time, Rustum predecessor in interest of the
respondents/plaintiffs, real uncle of Nooran remained alive
till 09.06.2001 and he died after the death of Mst. Nooran as
such they are entitled to inherit share from her estate,
whereas
Petitioner/defendant No.1/Manzoor Ahmad
fraudulently got incorporated mutation No.294 dated
20.07.2002 in his favour. In support of above version,
Chiragh Khan (one of the plaintiffs) appeared as PW1 who
stated that Nooran died on 10.06.1998 at the age of 60/65
years without solemnization marriage. Rustam died on
09.06.2001 who was real uncle of Nooran and was only
owner, as such mutation No.294 is based on fraud. In cross
examination he admitted that against sanctioning of
inheritance mutation, he filed an appeal before DOR which
was dismissed. Murad appeared as PW2 who stated that
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
5
mutation No.294 was wrongly incorporated in favour of
Manzoor Ahmad.
6.
Conversely, Zakir Hussain appeared as DW1 who
stated that he is general attorney of Manzoor Ahmad son of
Rustam. Mst. Nooran was daughter of Noora who died on
14.10.2001. She was owner of the suit land and was alive on
10.06.1998 and Chiragh with collusiveness of the official of
Union Council got prepared a forged death certificate of Mst.
Nooran, as such death certificate is forged which is liable to
be cancelled. From mother side Manzoor is real brother of
Nooran. The inheritance mutation No.294 of Nooran was
rightly incorporated in the revenue record in favour of
Manzoor Ahmad. Against the said mutation Chiragh, Zahoor
Ahmad, Gull Muhammad, Murad and Pehalwan filed an
application before DDOR Kamalia for cancellation of
inheritance mutation No.294 which was dismissed on
10.04.2003 whereafter Chiragh Khan and Zahoor Ahmad
filed suit. Muhammad Sadiq appeared as DW2 who stated
that:-
ےھجم ونراں درتخ ونرا یک اترخی وافت اید ہن ےھ۔ ازوخد اہک ہک اترخی اید اآ یئگ ےھ اور
ونراں یب یب ومرہخ 14.10.2001وک وفت وہیئ یھت۔ںیم ان رٹپھ وہں۔ ااقتنل
وراتث سج یک رو ےس رہبق وظنمر وک لقتنم وہا ےھ درتس وہا ےھ۔
7.
As per available record, Noora contracted marriage
with Mst. Samoo and from the said wedlock, Mst. Nooran
was born. After death of Noora in the year 1940, his widow
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
6
Mst. Samoo contracted second marriage with Rustam who
was real brother of deceased Noora. From the second
wedlock of Mst. Samo with Rustam, petitioner/Manzoor
Ahmad was born as such he is uterine brother of Mst. Nooran
deceased. For ready reference, admitted the pedigree table of
the parties of the lis is reproduced as under:-
انھکم
رمتس)وفت دش9.6.2001(
ونرا)وفت دش 1940( دمحم
افلض اہجہن)الب اشدی(
)لبق از ایقم اپاتسکن وفت دش(
اتسں) ویبہ رمتس(
ومسں)ویبہ رمتس( ومسں )وفت دش 15.6.1989( ولہپان رماد
)دعب از وافت ونرا، ومسں ےن رمتس ےس اشدی یک(
ونرن
وظنمر ادمح)اٹیب(
وتمہیف الباشدی )یٹیب(
رچاغ اخن لگ دمحم وہظر ادمح
8.
Admittedly, parties of the lis as well as their
predecessor are Muslims and controversial issue of
inheritance of a deceased Muslim are to be resolved
according to Quran and Sunnah. Even as per Article 227 of
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,
the principles of Quran and Sunnah are admitted as supreme
law of this country and all provisions, rules, regulations are
to be legislated and framed within the precincts of Islamic
principles. For reference, Article 227 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is reproduced as under:-
227. Provisions relating to the Holy Quran and
Sunnah.-(1) All existing laws shall be brought in
conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
7
in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred
to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be
enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions.
Explanation.-In the application of this clause to the
personal law of any Muslim sect, the expression
“Quran and Sunnah” shall mean the Quran and
Sunnah as interpreted by that sect.
(2) Effect shall be given to the provisions of clause (1)
only in the manner provided in this Part.
(3) Nothing in this Part shall affect the personal laws
of non-Muslim citizens or their status as citizens.
As the predecessor-in-interest of the parties of the lis as well
as the parties themselves are Muslims and principles of
Quran and Sunnah are mandatorily applicable upon them as
well. The shares of each and every Muslim inheritor have
conclusively been prescribed in Holy Quran. Allah
Almighty has ordained the Muslims to decide their all
disputes including issue of inheritance as per the principles
of the Holy Quran as described in following verses:
﴾ ۴۴ وسرۃ اآملدئۃ : آتی ربمن ﴿ وجہلصیفہنرکےاس)اتکب(ےکاطمقبےسجانزلرفامایاہللےنوتوُیہولگاکرفںیہ۔ ور ا
﴾ ۴۵ وسرۃ اآملدئۃ : آتی ربمن ﴿ ۔ وجہلصیفہنرکےاس)اتکب(ےکاطمقبےسجااترااہللےنوتوُیہولگاظملںیہ ور ا
﴾ ۴۷ وسرۃ اآملدئۃ : آتی ربمن ﴿ وجہلصیفہنرکںیاسےکاطمقبےسجاہللاعتٰیلےناُاتراےہوتوُیہولگافقسںیہ۔ ور ا
)رتہمج: انجب ومالان حتف دمحم اجدنلرھی(
The rights or shares of each and every Muslim heirs in the
estate of his/her deceased propositus is absolutely,
conclusively and finally described/determined in the Holy
Quran, which shares are definite in nature. In this regard, it
is expedient to take guidance from the Holy Quran,
particularly from Surah tul Nisa Ayat Nos.7 to 11 (English
translation whereof by Marmaduke Pickthall and Urdu
translation by Molana Fateh Muhammad Jalandari) are
reproduced as under:-
7. Unto the men (of a family) belongeth a share of that
which parents and near kindred leave, and unto the
women a share of that which parents and near kindred
leave, whether it be little or much. A legal share.
8. And when kinsfolk and orphans and the needy are
present at the division (of the heritage), bestow on them
therefrom and speak kindly unto them.
9. And let those fear (in their behaviour toward orphans)
who if they left behind them weak offspring would be
afraid for them. So let them mind their duty to Allah, and
speak justly.
10. Lo! Those who devour the wealth of orphans
wrongfully, they do but swallow fire into their bellies.
And they will be exposed to burning flame.
11. Allah commands you concerning (the provision for)
your children; to the male the equivalent of the portion of
two females, and if there be only women more than two,
then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there
be one (only) then for her is the half. And to each of his
parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if
he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his
mother appertaineth the third; but if he have brethren,
then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any
legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been
paid). Your parents and your children: Ye know not
which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an
injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is knower, Wise.
وج امل امں ابپ اور رہتش دار وھچڑ رمںی وھتڑا وہ ای تہب اس ںیم رمدوں اک یھب ہصح ےہ۔ اور وعروتں اک یھب۔ ہی
ےصح )اہلل ےک( رقمر ےیک وہےئ ںیہ۔اور بج ریماث یک میسقت ےک وتق )ریغ وارث( رہتش دار اور میتی اور
اتحمج آ اجںیئ وت ان وک یھب اس ںیم ےس ھچ دے دای رکو۔اور ریشںی الکیم ےس شیپ آای رکو اور اےسی ولوگں وک ڈران
اچےیہ وج )ایسی احتل ںیم وہں ہک( اےنپ دعب ےھنن ےھنن ےچب وھچڑ اجںیئ اور اوکن ایکن تبسن وخف وہ )ہک ان ےک
رمےن ےک دعب ان اچیبروں اک ایک احل وہاگ( سپ اچےیہ ہک ہی ولگ اہلل ےس ڈرںی اور وقعمل ابت ںیہک۔وج ولگ
ومیتیں اک امل اناج ز رور ر تاھ ے ںیہ وہ اےنپ ٹی ںیم آگ ترھ ے ںیہ۔ اور دوز ںیم ڈا ے اجںیئ ۔ے۔اہلل
اہمتری اوالد ےک ابرے ںیم مت وک اراشد رفامات ےہ ہک اکی ڑلےک اک ہصح دو ڑلویکں ےک ےصح ےک ربارب ےہ۔ اور
ارگ اوالد تیم رصف ڑلایکں یہ وہں )ینعی دو ای( دو ےس زایدہ وتلک رتےک ںیم ان اک دو اہتیئ۔اور ارگ رصف
اکی ڑلیک وہ وت اس اک ہصح فصن۔ اور تیم ےک امں ابپ اک ینعی دوونں ںیم ےس رہ اکی اک رتےک ںیم اٹھچ ہصح
رشبہکیط تیم ےک اوالد وہ۔ اور ارگ اوالد ہن وہ اور رصف امں ابپ یہ اےکس وارث وہں وت اکی اہتیئ امں اک ہصح
ے
یئ یھب وہں وت امں اک اٹھچ ہصح )اور ہی میسقت رتہک تیم یک( و) ت )یک (لیم( ےک دعب وج اس
ےک)اداوہےنےکدعبوجایسےکذےموہلمعںیمآےئیگ(متوکولعممںیہنہکت مھار
اور ارگ تیم ےک اھب
ےنیکوہایرقض
ابپ دادوں اور وٹیبں وپوتں ںیم ےس افدئہ ےک احلظ ےس وکن مت ےس زایدہ رقبی ےہ ہی ےصح اہلل ےک رقمر ے
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
9
وہےئ ںیہ۔ےبکش اہلل بس ھچ اجےنن واال )اور( تمکح واال ےہ۔ )رتہمج: انجب ومالان حتف دمحم
اجدنلرھی(
Further in respect of inheritance of a deceased bachelor /
spinster Muslim (male/female) in Surah tul Nisa, Ayat
No.176, it has been ordered as under:-
(اے ربمغیپ( ولگ مت ےس )الکہل ےک ابرے ںیم( مکح )دخا( درایتف رک ے ںیہ ہہک دو ہک دخا الکہل ابرے ںیم
ہی مکح داتی ےہ ہک ارگ وکیئ ااسی رمد رماجےئ سج ےک اوالد ہن وہ )اور ہن امں ابپ( اور اس ےک نہب وہ وت اس وک
اھبیئ ےک رتےک ںیم ےس آداھ ہصح ےلم اگ۔ اور ارگ نہب رماجےئ اور اس ےک اوالد ہن وہ وت اس ےک امتم امل اک
وارث اھبیئ وہاگ اور ارگ )رمےن وا ے اھبیئ یک( دو ںینہب وہں وت دوونں وک اھبیئ ےک رتےک ںیم ےس دو اہتیئ۔ اور
ارگ اھبیئ اور نہب ینعی رمد اور وعرںیت ےلم ےلج وارث وہں وت رمد اک ہصح دو وعروتں ےک ربارب ےہ۔ )ہی ااکحم(
دخا مت ےس اس ےئل ایبن رفامات ےہ ہک ےتکٹھب ہن رھپو۔ اور دخا رہ زیچ ےس وافق ےہ ﴿آتی ربمن 176﴾
Reliance in this regard is placed on cases titled as The
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law &
Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad vs. Muhammad Ishaq and
another (PLD 1983 SC 273), Abdul Ghafoor and others Vs.
Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1985 SC 407), Mst.
Fazal Jan Vs. Roshan Din and others (PLD 1990 SC 661),
Ismail and another Vs. Ghulam Qadir and others (1990
SCMR 1667), Sardar Vs. Mst. Nehmat Bi and 8 others
(1992 SCMR 82), Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs
and 2others Vs. Mst. Karam Khatoon through Legal Heirs
and 2 others (2003 SCMR 1535), Ghulam Haider and
others Vs. Murad through Legal Representatives and others
(PLD 2012 SC 501), Fayyaz Hussain and others Vs. Haji
Jan Muhammad and others (2018 SCMR 698), Ghulam
Qasim and others Vs. Mst. Razia Begum and others (PLD
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
10
2021 SC 812), Abdul Khaliq (deceased) through LRs. Vs.
Fazalur Rehman and others (2022 SCMR 1665) and
Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through Legal Heirs and
others Vs. Muhammad Rafique and others (2020 CLC 400).
Reliance is also placed on the case cited as Gul Muhammad
& Others Vs Allah Diwaya (deceased) through his Legal
Heirs & Others (2021 MLD 1146).
9.
Furthermore, the petitioner/Manzoor is real uterine
brother of deceased Mst. Nooran and it is settled law that
when a real brother of a deceased issueless spinster lady is
alive, he is entitled to inherit the entire estate of the deceased
and the paternal uncle or his successors are not entitled to
inherit any share. Reliance in this regard is placed on cases
cited as Saadullah and Others Vs. Mst. Gulbanda and Others
(2014 SCMR 1205), Waris Ali and Others Vs. Rasoolan Bibi
(PLD 2014 SC 779), Muhammad Sharif Vs. Mst. Niamat
Bibi (2021 SCMR 1355) and Shahray Khan (deceased)
through LRs. and others Vs. Qadir Bakhsh (deceased)
through LRs. and others (2023 SCMR 201).
10. So far as the controversy of date of death of Mst.
Nooran is concerned, suffice it to say that record shows that
Chiragh Khan etc., did not prove that Mst. Nooran died on
10.06.1998, as only the death certificate was produced in
evidence in the statement of the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs and the said document has no intrinsic value and by
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
11
exclusion of the said document from judicial consideration,
there is nothing on the record to show that Mst. Nooran died
on 10.06.1998 which falw leads to hold that plaintiff/
respondents have failed to prove their stance. Further,
respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs challenged the inheritance
mutation No.294 before DDOR on the plea that it was
incorporated on the basis of fraud and concealment of true
fact but in this regard no credible evidence was produced.
Thus, the reasoning expounded by the lower judicial fora has
no consonance with the facts of this case and same suffers
from perversity.
11. Moreover, copy of Jamabandi for the years 1999-2000
(Exh.P1), copy of mutation No.294 dated 20.07.2000
(Exh.P3) and death certificate of Nooran (Exh.P5) were
produced in the statement of learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs which is considered as an invalid mode
of tendering of documents and same are inadmissible in
evidence, as such the documents produced by the
respondents’ counsel cannot be relied upon as valid evidence
and such documents could not be taken into consideration.
Reliance is placed on the case title Mst. Akhtar Sultana Vs.
Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs
and others (PLD 2021 SC 715). Similar view has been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its
latest judgment cited as Rustam & Others Vs. Jehangir
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
12
(deceased) through LRs (2023 SCMR 730) wherein it is held
as under:-
7. As regards the other two documents i.e.
mutation No.1836 (Exh.D-9) and mutation
No.1837 (Exh.D-8), it is suffice to say that
according to principle settled by this Court in the
cases reported as Mst. Hameeda Begum and others
v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others (2007 SCMR
996), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary
Ministry of Defence and another v Jaffar Khan
and others (PLD 2010 SC 604), Province of the
Punjab through Collector. Sheikhupura and others
v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah and others (2017
SCMR 172) the document should be produced in
the evidence by the party itself and a fair
opportunity should be given to the opposite party
to cross-examine the same, as such, the said two
documents produced by the defendants counsel in
his statement could not be taken into
consideration."
12. As the decisions of the lower fora on issue Nos.1 to 3
suffer from blatant misreading and non-reading of the
evidence as well as mis-application of law, as such the
findings of both the courts below on issue Nos.1 to 3 being
against the record, are hereby reversed and the same are
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents/plaintiffs. This Court is well within jurisdiction
to reverse such illegal and perverse concurrent findings of the
lower fora in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115
CPC. Reliance is placed on the cases titled as Nazim-ud-Din
& Others Vs. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar & Others (2016 SCMR
24).
13. In view of above, this civil revision is allowed.
Consolidated judgment & decree dated 17.10.2014 passed by
Civil Revision No.164468/2018
13
the learned Civil Judge, Kamalia as well as judgment &
decree dated 11.12.2017 passed by the learned Addl. District
Judge, Pir Mahal are hereby set aside and suit for declaration
filed by the petitioner is hereby decreed whereas suit for
declaration filed by the respondents is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting.
JUDG
Tags
Warasat