Muhammad Sadiq VS Mst. Bibi Salima

I __G_'Fi. tFDEit"tkt#dl

,i

.ts EF.O].[LF] r.rusff.aw, \H" ffiI(+FI COU ,r_LltIIi t'.[ cHI'r[dAn,.

.) i /' rij. R. mo.

! """""""":' .....or 1, A4uh;unmacl siclcl icluLe S/O At rcllrl lSroze Tehsil and Distlict Manan lR/O lR Clri tra l.

(Petitioner)

I Msr Bir:i iSali'ra D1?

a,d District C.itral.2 llre.Arl;ii.?X;,,'^,, R/o rrori last:r.i.cli.;il Fahira ahmad 5 Ri Nadeern ,.rr,,;;'; Salr,a..' i\hrnacl .l m:l*i ' .1,.:,aig R/o ;1't :lllxi t :, : it x ilT::i,,1J:; j :,^:;,,,,

I

;l;1"*i,l;:';1;;,t:? y".,,,:J.ll::l :7: Ahmecl It/O ujno.l.or.l,:iro., ,r- ,, ln,yt9 .i/o orvsa, ,"-ooru, Ter.rsir una oi.rrilr,]r3';lilli Zziri' (iri-iarr'":l;

iResponclcnis:

{:ivil .i-(cuisi o Di:;lt ^ict Ju d rnt?!Li; i.i t:i|a r.r cal o .i',:r lirJ iir;: a rl I t4t:4 ,l .:J ,r a.;

I

cti ijp11__t!rc inututi tlCr! ri rl;s l_ie I{' ttu be ti.i;i.rl3 , i !l ru z r-,i'i r;o_.;

lgr__gr 411- o.tft.e r 0ii-etr.

tls:;r:-d irL & Dottr Lti a 'ti?

lj t. ;,t t.[ .foc:t',s 1l_!,! 1t (I i::{: d- (] ik.,ws:

L

I

I 'i'hat the liesoorrdent lVo1. (piaintifl) bror- rgh_ a sr,rit aqainsI \lilt( tl-re Pr:tiLior-ier. ancl othcr rcs;irt,r,l",rt_.., Nn . 2 to I0 lJccla ra t ion a rtr.l ticr.:l<ini1 1-.rsl-111 211.r en i i nj t. n r: j otr (. .o1.r'l r.

of 1;l:rin l ir;

a nne;xur.e [z\) . n

I

a.

<r

IUDGMENTSHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-I.JL-QAZA), SWAT

(Jttdictul Depurorunf)

GB. No.3GMll016.

With CIt[s No. 32016 & +Cn0fi

TUDGMENT

Dolc of headas:- 07. 12.201 7.

i/ Pffionq:- (Iltuhowtud Sadtq) by Mr. Afub Rohlm i r-l lr , r. I Advocda Rapndcntsr (MsL Blbl Soltna & uhets ) by Mr. Alom ZebrAdvocola

MOHAMMAD I KHAN. 1.. For a

obtaining a declaratory decree Mst. Bibi Salima wants to declare herself to be daughter of Abdul Manan ancl is entitled to her Shari share in his legacy of the properties as mentioned in lhe Zomima Boy. This prayer is coupled with obtalning possession of her Shari share if the legacy being partitioned. There be declaration to the effect that all those properties as b) mentioned in Zomimo Boy her brother Muhammad Siddique has sold part of the land owned by her in favour of the Defendant (hereln the Respqndents No. 2 to 11) liable for M.€,4'h .**..*tM *AT TFSTE

,f lr '_'l.ri ilrch j ,r.r,: -i.'.., rraL

a8i'a

v its canr:ellation. By thls time till the land owned is to be declared in her possession, she is entitlerl to produce @ Rs. 20,000/- per annum from lhe date rrf demise of her father till physically she is possesseC and by a decree for obtaining permarent injunction the Defendants (hereirr the Petitioner as well as the Resporrdents No. 2 to 11) shall not claim owner:;hip of th€ Shari share of the iaid Mst.

Bibi Salima. The father of Mst. Blbi Salima by the name of l\bdul Manan has left this transient world about 50/55 years back, she is the sole daughter of said deceased and at present living witr her in-laws.

2 This claim was hotly contested

j' d- through written statement on behalf of the Defendants No. 1 and 9 to 11, whereby they raised,various legal and factual objections. On the basis of averments taken in the pleadings of thrr parties the following issues were framed:-

E.f l)hfr8frfrfr8TT=tT

t'n.. i , ; t' rl :t ch

t

,s5uEs;

7.tilhr1;her the Platntlff hos got cause of adton & locus stondt? OIP 2, Whethcr Plointiff ls estopped to sue

3.Whether predecessor,,iylntdrest of the pottttes named Abdul Manon ot the tltae of hts death l$t the prcpeiy mentioned ln "Zomima Bay" altmp'rtdng 06 "qltoos"l OPP

4.Whether Abdul Monan has sold out most o;f hls property recelved ln the legocy'. of hls father Mtkaylt to dlfferent persons & ot the tlme of hls death he did not left onphing in hts legocyi'OPD

5.Whether Plaintfff ls also the doughter ol Abdul Monan or Abdul tdr Manon had only one daughter named Khgnza Bibl? OPP

6.Whether one Abdul ,Murad got possess:ed the lands & hoyses of Abdul lfionan, kicked out defendant No. 7 ond his brother, lqter on ln lleu #1 ,Jfr )*Jwlrtu,,c,

ATTSSTH

.i \::!.;,'. i:l e Pr::lti,r,"' , . i lr,il11 B."n ch s !rili.

l\.1lli,;,. r1 , r i-,.ilr:-r.

of 27 years serulces fur the sald Abdul Mursd os well as ln lleu of cosh the dlsputed land was glven to defendant ltlo 7 whtch Is hls excluslve ownerchlp? OPD

7.Whether delendont No, 7 belng excluslve ownet of hls land sold out some of the land to defendonb No.

9 to 77 who ore bonofide I

ptrchotsers?

8, Whether as pq pcdlgree tabte PlalnJlff ls entltled to gd her Shorl share ln the legocy ol hcr tother Abdul Monan through prtltlon?

OPP

9.Whether Plolntilf ls entltled to get Jhe d*ree os proyertor? OPP

lO. Rellef.

3 Leading their evidence the parties rn- then examined their respective wltnesses' At the end after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Court was pleased in grant of a decree ln suit No. 118/1 of the year t-.

I1',f .T'FfiT E Z01e decided on Sth December, 2015' This l: iler t*,[dffir- i;(r'rll. lrrrch 'rkd'(Sr.) lL.'* tL.

relief '^,as specilic lAs sequel to my obove discussion, a preliminory decree of portition about the legocy of Abdul Manan os proyer for is herehy possed in favour of oll his LRs to the erteft ol their shori shares, which will be determined ot the time of final decree. Let the cost foilow the eventl.

4.The present Petitioner Muhammad Siddique then preJerred his appeal bearing No.

SZXlll of the year 2015 before the Court of learned District ludgelZila Qazi Chitral, who i

upon hearing learrned counsel for the parties passed its judgment on 08.08.2015. Para 9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- l, { r 7 gtilt 4 a,, ! 7Y td uQfi 7 eo\.,,/}-e w)-- sdt a' { s, tyr/ $ ianl 6/t f v, "t 7 f gil 4 6 rt rz tt.(l -t-./ fit e-2, lv L 1 t 7 & -'V i)UiJ/:,'t 4 Lt,/ *v t t 7l)(S t 7 t5

I{

&t ,t{v ,i t, /t - q- o-( ei ,: { ttl ttlv ,f o 4 ;.t -0" 6 *, r,tlt nl dlJfr,iql 0" ti,: lS Q n i /, 1/.e r ()t 1t 49 L g l-u.',:l I' t Ju. .4,t

*, fi , iV ff -({ *-,ft-uftt r,, -f7:J,, o I ATTF*S 1 : -qe n, I -]ft0 !6 o nt at r, ut 4 L Ju. uz t

r lt L.Jrdgl.ldLfr "'i:Ch

l:.!!_: !-t..r , '::r It

v i dbr (, ell/r d-) ! : tt a $t.illtOr u t O )V L t/t '- g+.'*tr cg /,t lgt t/ { 1,,1r t 7 S' Ju. {t.,,'g

q ! / *ti etf -f-., 7,1 / Gi;t ff) tlil, il I:,,t ff -Vct c,/vvi.g6 p tb L f *,, Jx.;, b ,t

s6 L r,, I 4L1,>t e Jil' L i- 4-t jvQv n - a, ct u.

6! d "h a-wr{.,tit 1 uP r P }G { t ll i7 tr t-t it iJ f tV * *A : tf ; ),.,v J L, lv rt civ *u'.1? 6 / " 4pfu *fii L /*nt Q i 11 r:tfi ,,t r>,t 4Q !q-:*.r o,Q 1f 4/u:L/!Lt / { ;i r' 4t -6rt t.,'t Lb I U:( tt !,qt - 7,*( ai ' : -C/:,h,t166/uttr Follovring Para 10 of the judgment the findings of the Jearned Civil Court were upheld and der:ree dated 05.12.2015 was confirnred leaving the appeal dismissed.

5.ln ttre attending circumstances againsl the conctrrrent findings of the learned Courts below tvluhammad Siddique son of Abdul Manan ltas preferred this revision g- VL petitiorr for settiug aside of the iudgments of the learned Courts below with the following prayer:-

;rl7Ttr_q "lt ls therefore, humbl1 ProYed rer thot on accePto,nce of thts Pr : oud nch , . :1.,..r. S!vat. Revlslon Petltlon, the lmPuEned .tY.J-t.lM

I

.F

ludgments/orderc and decrees ol Mh the Courb below be aside ond the sult ol the plolntfif/rapondent No. 7 be dlsmls*d wlth costs and any other rcmedy whlch thls ougust Court dem proper ln the best ,lnterest ol tusttce may klndly be granted,"

6 Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, recbrd with their assistance gone through.

7 At ttre first instance when the findings of the parties leading to an inference that Mst. Bibi Salima whether daughter of the said Abdul Manan deceased who was owner of the properties as mentioned in Zomimo Bay.

\!e f This fact is eviderrt from the statement of PW-1 Jandool Khan. The wltness has bedn cross- I examined and hq has adhered to hls statement in the following manneri .

A.rrF=)84 t'-,1;,,rr/ , . o(/r.l-l,,Ilch

.,, rtl:it

---=,_'Bau -1EEfiiEffifr

f, 't.

! v, ! Tt tt *9 c:-t t ri f b,t,t I t !7v Ir, t OUt {.f i Ll,/ obb, I?s, I lf ctuull tz -7ttt/;{4}ltse Mst. Bibi Salima was examined as

PW-2, she has also categorically stated that she is daughter of late Abdul Manan and has named all her close relatives including the Defendant No. 1 (herein the Petitioner) to be her real brother. Denying this relationship DW- 1 Muhammad Siddque the Defendant No. 1 t

(herein the Petitioner) has categorically stated that his father at the time of death had left no legacy to be devolved upon his legal heirs and the lands mentioned in Zamimo Bay have been given to him in lieu of rendering of services (,zl,.r;) and on accbunt of purchase. This witness d- being tross-examined, who has also deposed that his father was having two sons and one daughter and he got married his sister to Abdul Wahid. Thus, Mst. Salima Bibi is not at all his sister ;nd she has blackmailed him in order to &gTEist

!ixr 1!'r !al qench E'At)fl, Ibdhb 'r-'r: ll:, 1at ll i\ S.';al'

:..fr. 81 r t_r::i I t>i_:

obtain huge amount from him, thereby this suit has berm instituted.

I Learn,:d counsel appearing on behalf of the Pdtit:ioner when confronted about the relationship between the Petitioner Muhanrrnad Sidtlique with Respondbnt No.

Mst. Bibi Salima to be brother and sister, he has without ifs arrds or buts admitted that yes

the relationship between both of them is of (herein the real br,rther and :;ister and Plaintiff Respondent No.

is the sister of Petitioner'

Apart from this fact DW4 Khan Muhammad on has also admittert in his cross-examination behalf of Defendants No' 2to 8i Ju.ftl-.,, t /,1 .( 7'*' z'+/t/ r'/,*b t f d.- -*'l'! '!A'r *o.qh TherebY leaving no stone unturned of Mst' to declare that indeed the relatlonship Siddique are real Bibil Salima and Vluhammad

are Legal Heirs sister and brother inter-se and of the deceased r\bdul Manan'

P

T..:# ench ffir;itll*

..:t.

l0

9 Then the next controversy in

between the parties is that the lands as mentioned ln Zomima Boy has been fallen to the exclusive ownership of Muhammad Siddique (the Petitioner herein) on the basis of pronouncements of the Judicial Council at Chitral in the year 1925. These dictums have has been exhibited during trial but its source not been disc-losed as to how these dictums announced coples have been obtained when

on 17,10.1925' The language seems to be

Persiatt, however its Urdu translation is

same would availatrle and a look over the

reveal that thr:se are mere applicatlons

descriptions of withottt detail ordefs' wherein

I

tj9/.- I ' mentioned' f the .properties have nqt been p'ono'ni"ments Thus, even if such judiclal a

are available onlthe record these are not to for the reason that its be given any credence anh these source is othe:'wise unknown'

ATT

':r/ I -rh @.864i *-.frto

L,

ll verdicts have not been produced from proper custody.

10.ln view of the above scheme of factual and legal axioms, this revision petition alongwlth CMS have got no force, whlch are hereby dismissed.

a

11.While parting with this judgment it is to mention here that on 0t'06'2017 the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr'

on Rahimullah Advocate had undertaken behalf of the Petitioner that in the event if i

stayed he will the execution proceedings are

I

submit an undertaking before the learned

has failed executing court that the revision

I

will handover possession ttJJ- and the Petitioner f, Salima) and on to the decree-holder (Mst' Bibi may further proceed its basis the final decree

Petitioner is under for final end' Thereby' the undertaking to act an obligation by his own

,N?TFq r) t :l ltr Ch 'f' 1i,i-1t

l2 v accordlingly without raising further objection in res[rect of completion of the final decree.

Announced IX: 07.1i't 2017 {'

JTIDGE

Certili;.*.,1 ,'* , ' '::t,:e tfrfry

Arti_-ri;2,;i;;r:,-r,,..,r:.,t,,

tj fi:/rr/

tv$

k