PLJ 2022 Lahore 974
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
-----O.VII R. 11--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), S. 42--Suit for declaration--Application for rejection of plaint on ground of limitation--Allowed--Dismissal of suit--Appeal was allowed and case was remanded--Faster father--Adopted son--Gift-deeds in favour of adopted son--Preparation of mutations--Suit was filed after 7 years of mutations--Challenge to--There is no violation of Order VI, Rule 4, CPC and trial Court’s decisions have been rightly interfered with and corrected by appellate Court--Where a case is remanded, facility of civil revision is only available when order directing remand is either absolutely perfunctory, manifestly perverse or evidently illegal--A trial is absolutely necessary in matter not only to allow respondent, to establish her case but to also give an equal opportunity to Petitioner and respondent to demonstrate by way of production of evidence that donor had reasons to consciously dis-include respondent from inheriting his estate--Beneficiaries shall have to do more than merely hide behind preliminaries.
[Pp. 980, 982 & 984] A, B & C
Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Gillani, Advocate for Petitioners.
Malik Shoukat Mahmood Mahra, AAG on Court call.
Date of hearing: 20.01.2022.
PLJ 2022 Lahore 974
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Muhammad Shan Gul, J.
ABDUL WAHEED, etc.--Petitioners
versus
Mst. RUBINA SHAHEEN--Respondent
C.R. No. 52-D of 2022, decided on 20.1.2022.
Order
Through this Order the titled civil revision i.e. 52- D/2022 as also connected civil revision No. 53-D/2022 are sought to be decided since common questions of law and fact are involved in both cases.
2. Facts leading up to the civil revisions under adjudication are as follows:-
Civil Revision No. 52-D/2022
3. Facts in brief are that respondent herein, plaintiff in the suit Mst. Rubina Shaheen, instituted a suit for declaration calling in question the legality of Hibanamas Nos.202-203 dated 10.2.2001 as well as mutations No. 19932 and 19933 dated 24.4.2001 on the grounds that Hibanamas were based on fraud and misrepresentation and that the same should be declared to be of no legal effect.
4. The plaintiff Rubina Shaheen maintained that her father who was a foster father to Petitioner No. 1 herein, namely Abdul Waheed s/o Muhammad Khalid (Muhammad Saeed) was the owner of the suit property; that Petitioner No. 1 was the adopted son of father of the respondent and he along with Petitioner No. 2 (his wife) fraudulently got prepared a registered deed No. 202 & 203 dated 10.2.2001 and on the basis of the said fraudulently prepared gift-deeds managed to get the impugned mutations recorded and sanctioned. The petitioners contested the suit by filing their written statement. The petitioners also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of being barred by limitation which was contested. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments from both sides allowed the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and dismissed the suit vide order dated 29.9.2021 on the following grounds:--
“1) That the predecessor of the appellant/plaintiff namely Muhammad Saeed did not challenge the impugned gift-deeds in his life time;
2) That sister of appellant/plaintiff who is respondent/ Defendant No. 2 Samina Shaheen did not assail the registered gift-deeds;
3) That particulars of fraud have not been narrated in the plaint as required under order VI Rule 4 of CPC;
4) The suit was time barred.”
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before a learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal who vide judgment dated 09.11.2021 allowed the same and remanded the case to the learned trial Court to decide the suit afresh after recording evidence. Hence, this civil revision.
C.R. No. 53-D/2022
5. Facts in brief are that respondent herein, plaintiff in the suit, Mst. Rubina Shaheen, instituted a suit for declaration calling in question the legality of gift-deed No. 695 dated 29.3.2010 and gift-deed No. 1567 dated 24.6.2011 as well as Mutation No. 40964 dated 28.10.2010 and Mutation No. 41858 dated 30.7.2011 on the grounds that Hibanamas were based on fraud and misrepresentation and that the same should be declared to be of no legal effect. The plaintiff maintained that her father who was a foster father to Petitioner No. 1 namely Abdul Waheed s/o Muhammad Khalid (Muhammad Saeed) was the owner of the suit property; that Petitioner No. 1 was the adopted son of father of the respondent and he along with Petitioner No. 2, Samina Shaheen, real sister of plaintiff Rubina Shaheen fraudulently got prepared a registered gift-deed No. 695 dated 29.3.2010 and gift-deed No. 1567 dated 24.6.2011 as well as Mutation No. 40964 dated 28.10.2010 and on the basis of the said fraudulently prepared gift-deeds managed to get the impugned mutations recorded and sanctioned. The petitioners contested the suit by filing their separate written statements. The petitioners also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of being barred by limitation which was contested. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments from both sides allowed the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and dismissed the suit vide order dated 29.9.2021 on the following grounds:
“1) That the predecessor of the appellant/plaintiff namely Muhammad Saeed did not challenge the impugned gift-deeds in his life time;
2) That particulars of fraud have not been narrated in the plaint as required under order VI Rule 4 of CPC;
3) The suit was time barred.”
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal who vide judgment dated 09.11.2021 allowed the same and remanded the case to the learned trial Court to decide the suit afresh after recording evidence. Hence, this civil revision.
Case before this Court
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is bad in law because the suit filed by the respondent, Rubina Shaheen, was massively barred by limitation inasmuch as in terms of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a suit for declaration as the one under adjudication can be filed within six years while the suit in Civil Revision No. 52-D/2022 was filed after 17 years of the mutations having been recorded while in the case of civil revision No. 53-D/2022 the suit was filed after 7 years of the mutations having been recorded. Adds further that plaints in both suits did not reveal any cause of action and that no particulars of fraud were mentioned in either of the plaints and, therefore, there was no use in allowing the suits to proceed. He has placed reliance on “Mrs. Akram Yaseen and others v. Asif Yaseen and others” (2013 SCMR 1099), “Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Amin through L.Rs. and others” (2008 SCMR 913) and “Nazar Gul v. Islam and 3 others” (1998 SCMR 1223) in this respect.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record and am in a position to decide this matter.
8. Before, however, attempting to deal with the matter on merits we must stop here to consider and analyze the relationship between the competing parties so as to place the present matter in its proper context and contour. The suits in question were filed by Mst. Rubina Shaheen who had been deprived of her real father’s property, in the case of civil revision No. 52-D/2022 by the adopted son of her father Abdul Waheed in collusion with his wife Mst. Saima whereas in the suit filed in the matter out of which civil revision No. 53-D/2022 emanates, she claimed to have been deprived of her father’s property by her father’s adopted son, Abdul Waheed in collusion with respondent/plaintiff’s real biological sister, Mst. Samina Shaheen.
9. This narrative is necessary so as to understand as to why the real sister of Mst. Rubina Shaheen i.e. Samina Shaheen did not undertake the effort of challenging any of the mutations in respect of which Mst. Rubina Shaheen has laid a challenge. It is evident that Mst. Samina Shaheen is a beneficiary of the gift mutations dated 28.10.2010 and 30.7.2011 along with the adopted son of her real father, Abdul Waheed, therefore, her interest is not adverse to that of Abdul Waheed and it is, therefore, that she did not choose to lay a challenge in the same way as has been done by Mst. Rubina Shaheen.
10. After a perusal of the orders passed by the learned trial Court under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC as also the judgments passed by the learned appellate Court in the appeals filed against the orders of rejection of plaints, the following issues require attention:
1. Whether suits such as those under consideration can be summarily dismissed without having regard to the question of depriving a daughter from her inheritable due? Especially with fraud having been alleged.
2. Whether limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and can only be answered after recording of evidence in the facts and circumstances of the cases at hand?
3. Whether the orders passed by the learned trial Court and set aside by the learned appellate Court hold back the beneficiaries of the mutations in question on whom onus should have been placed from proving the transactions?
4. Whether the orders of the learned trial Court or the judgments of the learned appellate Court are to be preferred?
5. Whether the present civil revisions aimed against orders of remand are maintainable?
11. In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to peruse the plaints filed by the respondent, Mst. Rubina Shaheen/plaintiff. A perusal of these plaints clearly reveals that in paragraphs No. 3 and 4 thereof not only has fraud been alleged but even particulars in respect thereto have been delineated quite clearly and amplified and, therefore, the observation and consequent reasoning of the learned trial Court about no particulars of fraud having been mentioned is far from truth and entirely gratuitous.
Paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of plaint in C.R. No. 52-D/2022 are as follows:
3۔ یہ کہ جائیداد متدعویہ کی بابت تحریر و تکمیل ہونے والی دستاویزات ہبہ نامہ نمبران 202، 203 مورخہ 10.02.2001 اور انتقال نمبران 19933-19932 مورخہ 24.04.2001 خلاف قانون ، خلاف واقعات و حقائق ، خلاف شریعت ، بلا علم و اطلاع ، دھوکہ دہی ، فراڈ ، مد عاعلیم کی باہمی سازش اور بد نیتی پر مبنی ہونے کی بنا پر حقوق مدعیہ پر باطل ، کالعدم ، غیر موثر اور قابل منسوخی ہیں جن کے تحت مد عاعلیہم نے مدعیہ کو جائز ، شرعی و قانونی حق وراثت سے محروم کر دیا ہے ۔ جائیداد متدعویہ مدعیہ کے والد محمد سعید ولد محمد صادق کی ملکیت ہے جس کی کوئی نرینہ اولاد نہ تھی اور مدعیہ کے علاوہ ایک بیٹی ثمینہ شاہین ہیں ۔ محمد سعید والدم نے نرینہ اولاد نہ ہونے کی بنا پر مد عاعلیہ نمبر 1 کو Adopt کیا اور اس کی احسن طریقے سے پرورش کی اور اس کو روز گار بھی فراہم کیا اور دھوم دھام سے اس کی شادی بھی کی محمد سعید والدم نے کبھی بھی جائیداد متدعویہ مد عاعلیہم کو ہبہ کرنے کی پیش کش نہ کی ہے ۔ نہ ہی ایسی کسی مبینہ پیش کش کو قبول کیا گیا اور نہ ہی قبضہ جائیداد متدعویہ مدعاعلیہم کو دیا گیا بلکہ محمد سعید والد مدعیہ اپنی وفات مورخہ 25.10.2017 تک جائیداد متدعویہ میں قابض ورہائش پزیر رہا جائیداد متدعویہ میں موجود سامان ہمہ قسم بھی والد مدعیہ کی ملکیت ہے جو کہ مدعا علیہم کی ناجائز تحویل وقبضہ میں ہے جس کی بابت علیحدہ و قانونی کاروائی کی جارہی ہے ۔ محمد سعید والد مدعیہ بوقت تحریر و تکمیل دستاویزات ہبہ نامہ ہائے متدعو یہ مد عاعلیہم کی تحویل میں تھا اور ان کے زیر اثر تھا جنہوں نے والد مدعیہ کے علم واطلاع کے بغیر دستاویزات ہبہ نامہ ہائے متنازعہ و متدعو یہ تیار کیں جن کو دھوکہ دہی اور بدنیتی کے تحت بذریعہ اہل کمیشن تصدیق کروالیا ۔ مد عاعلیہ نمبر 1 نے بد نیتی کے تحت دستاویزات متدعویہ میں خود کو محمد سعید متوفی کا حقیقی بیٹا بھی ظاہر کیا ہے جو کہ ہر گز ہر گز محمد سعید متوفی کا بیٹا نہ ہے بلکہ محمد خالد نامی شخص کا بیٹا ہے جو کہ زندہ ہے اور ساہیوال شہر کارہائشی ہے ۔ اس طرح مد عاعلیہم محمد سعید متوفی کے شرعی و قانونی اور جائز وارثان ہیں جنہوں نے بدنیتی کے تحت مدعیہ کو مد عیہ کے جائز ، شرعی و قانونی حق وراثت بطور بیٹی سے اور دیگر جائز وارثان کو ان کے حق وراثت سے محروم کر دیا ہے جو کہ مدعیہ کے حق وراثت سے انحراف کرتے ہوئے خود کو جائیداد متدعوعیہ کا مالک تصور کر رہے ہیں جس کا اخلاقی و قانونی طور پر انہیں کوئی حق واختیار حاصل نہ ہے ۔
4۔ یہ کہ محمد سعید والدم مورخہ 25.10.2017 کو بقضائے الہی فوت ہوئے جس کے بعد عرصہ تقریبا 1 ماہ قبل مدعیہ نے اپنے پسر محمد عبداللہ کے ذریعے انتقال وراثت کے لیے پٹواری حلقہ کے پاس تحرک کیا تو دستاویزات متنازعہ متد عو یہ کا علم ہوا۔
Paragraphs No. 3, 4 and 5 of plaint in C.R. No. 53-D/2022 are as follows:-
3۔ یہ کہ مد عاعلیہم کا آپس میں کوئی خونی رشتہ نہ ہے ۔ تاہم مد عاعلیہ نمبر 2 مدعیہ کی حقیقی بہن ہے جبکہ مدعیہ کے والد نے مد عاعلیہ نمبر 1 کولے پالک کے طور پر پالا تھا ۔ مدعا علیہم نے جائیداد متدعویہ بروئے دستاویزات ہبہ نامہ رجسٹری نمبران 695 مورخہ 29.03.2010 و 1567 مورخہ 24.06.2011 اپنے نام بحصہ برابر منتقل کر وا نا ظاہر کیا ہے اور ان دستاویزات کی بناءپر ریو نیو ریکارڈ میں انتقالات نمبر ان 40964 مورخہ 28.10.2010و41858 مورخہ 30.07.2011 بھی درج و تصدیق ہو نا ظاہر کیے گئے ۔ جائیداد متدعویہ کی بابت ہونے والی یہی دستاویزات ہبہ نامہ اور انتقالات متنازعہ و متدعویہ ہیں۔
4۔ یہ کہ جائیداد متدعویہ کی بابت تحریر و تکمیل ہونے والی دستاویزات ہبہ نامہ نمبران 695 مور خہ 29.03.2010 و 1567 مورخہ 24.06.2011 و انتقالات نمبر 40964 مورخہ 28.10.2010 و 41858 مورخہ30.07.2011 خلاف قانون ، خلاف واقعات و حقائق خلاف شریعت ، بلا علم و اطلاع دھوکہ دہی ، فراڈ ، مد عاعلیہم کی باہمی سازش اور بدنیتی پر مبنی ہونے کی بناپر حقوق مد عید پر باطل کلعدم ، غیر موثر اور قابل منسوخی ہیں جن کے تحت مد عاعلیہم نے مدعیہ کو اس کے جائز شرعی و قانونی حق وراثت سے محروم کر دیا ہے ۔ جائیداد متدعویہ مدعیہ کے والد محمد سعید ولد محمد صادق کی ملکیت تھی جس کی کوئی نرینہ اولاد نہ تھی اور مدعیہ کے علاوہ ایک بیٹی مد عاعلیہ نمبر 2 ہے ۔ محمد سعید والدم نے نرینہ اولاد نہ ہونے کی بنا پر مدعالیہ نمبر 1 کو Adopt کیا اور اس کی احسن طریقے سے پرورش کی اور اس کو روزگار بھی فراہم کیا اور دھوم دھام سے اس کی شادی بھی کی محمد سعید والدم نے کبھی بھی جائیداد متد عو یہ مد عاعلیہم کو ہبہ کرنے کی پیش کش نہ کی ہے ۔ نہ ہی ایسی کسی مبینہ پیش کش کو قبول کیا گیا اور نہ ہی قبضہ جائیداد متدعویہ مدعا علیہم کو دیا گیا بلکہ محمد سعید والد مدعیہ اپنی وفات مورخہ 25.10.2017 تک جائیداد متدعو یہ میں قابض ، مالک تھا اور دوکانات اور چوبارہ کرایہ پر دے رکھے تھے ۔ محمد سعید والد مدعیہ بوقت تحر و تکمیل دستاویزات ہبہ نامہ ہائے متدعویہ مدعا علیہم کی تحویل میں تھا اور ان کے زیر اثر تھا جنہوں نے والدہ مدعیہ کے علم واطلاع کے بغیر دستاویزات ہبہ نامہ ہائے متنازعہ و متدعویہ تیار کیں جن کو دھوکہ دہی اور بدنیتی کے تحت بذریعہ اہل کمیشن تصدیق کروا لیا ۔ مد عاعلیہ نمبر 1 نے بدنیتی کے تحت دستاویزات متدعویہ میں خود کو محمد سعید متوفی کا حقیقی بیٹا بھی ظاہرکیا ہے جو کہ ہر گز محمد سعید متوفی کا بیٹا نہ ہے بلکہ محمد خالد نامی شخص کا بیٹا ہے جو کہ زندہ ہے اور ساہیوال شہر کا رہائشی ہے ۔ مدعاعلیہ نمبر 1 نے اپنے نکاح نامہ مورخہ 1997-02-27 میں اپنے حقیقی والد کا محمد خالد لکھا ہوا ہے جو کہ بلد یہ ساہیوال کے ریکارڈ میں موجود ہے ۔ اس طرح مد عاعلیہ نمبر 1 محمد سعید متوفی کا جائز شرعی و قانونی وارث نہ ہے مدعاعلیہم نے بدنیتی کے تحت مدعیہ کو مدعیہ کے جائز، شرعی و قانونی حق وراثت بطور بیٹی سے محروم کر دیا ہے جو کہ مدعیہ کے حق وراثت سے انحراف کرتے ہوئے خود کو جائید اد متدعویہ کا مالک تصور کر رہے ہیں جس کا اخلاقی و قانونی طور پر انہیں کوئی حق واختیار حاصل نہ ہے ۔
5۔ یہ کہ محمد سعید والدم مورخہ 25.10.2017 کو بقضائےالہی فوت ہوئے جس کے بعد عرصہ تقریباً 1 ماہ قبل مدعیہ نے اپنے پسر محمد عبد اللہ کے ذریعے انتقال وراثت کے لیے پٹواری حلقہ کے پاس تحرک کیا تو دستاونات متنازعہ متدعویہ کا علم ہوا۔
12. It is evident from paragraphs No. 3, 4 and 5 reproduced above that besides alleging and narrating fraud, mentioning its elements and particulars and its mode and its beneficiaries, the plaintiff Rubina Shaheen has also clearly mentioned the time when she discovered about the allegedly fraudulent mutations and Hibanamas. According to the plaints, plaintiff Rubina Shaheen learnt about the mutations and Hibanamas around December, 2017 and, therefore, other things being equal, limitation would start to run, prima facie, from the said time period. In “Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat and others” (2020 SCMR 352), it has been held that, “where fraud was alleged in the matter of inheritance limitation starts from the date of knowledge of fraud and not before.” Likewise, in “Baja through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Bakhan and others” (2015 SCMR 1704), it has been held that, “the period of limitation to challenge an allegedly fraudulent transaction is taken from the date of knowledge of fraud and not before.”
13. The above takes care of the unwarranted observation of the learned trial Court about the plaints lacking in material particulars in so far as allegation of fraud is concerned. Hence, there is no violation of Order VI, Rule 4, CPC and the learned trial Court’s decisions have been rightly interfered with and corrected by the learned appellate Court.
14. This makes us move over to address the burning question of limitation in the matter. Plaintiff, Mst. Rubina Shaheen has stated in paragraph No. 4 of her plaints that she discovered the allegedly fraudulent hibanamas and mutations around December, 2017 and, therefore, was well within time to have brought the suits to challenge such allegedly fraudulent hibanamas and mutations. It is on this count that the learned trial Court was wrong in treating the question of limitation as being purely one of law since its determination hedged on facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in “Jan Muhammad and others v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others” (PLD 2017 SC 158) has categorically ruled that, “limitation will be a pure question of law where such plea was not dependent upon any factual determination and that those cases which require a factual foundation and adjudication for the purposes of settling a legal issue could not be said to be pure questions of law.”
15. In the opinion of this Court the question of limitation in the present matters could not possibly qualify as a pure question of law on account of what has been stated in paragraph No. 4 of the plaints and, therefore, it was required to be determined by the learned trial Court whether plaintiff, Mst. Rubina Shaheen had actually gained knowledge in December, 2017 and on what basis and from whom and how and only then could the trial Court have decided the question of limitation with the question being clearly a mixed question of law and facts.
16. In “Haji Abdul Sattar and others v. Farooq Inayat and others” (2013 SCMR 1493), a three Member Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has lucidly ruled that, “the question in issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and which can only be determined after recording of evidence produced by the parties.” Similar observations have been recorded in “Messrs Anwar Textile Mills Limited v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and others” (2013 SCMR 1570) and hence, the attempt of the trial Court in declaring the issue of limitation to be a pure question of law in the presence of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present cases is indeed unwarranted and called for appropriate interference which was correctly carried out by the learned appellate Court.
17. It is trite, as has been rightly observed by the learned appellate Court that the limitation period of six years in a suit for declaration would start from the date when such fraud was revealed to an aggrieved person.
18. What is even more interesting and of the essence in the present matters is the fact that the learned appellate Court has done nothing more than merely remand and send back the matters to the learned trial Court so as for the learned trial Court to proceed with the trials and not bring these to an abrupt halt by means of unconvincing legal and technical reasons. During the course of such trials, both parties shall be allowed to produce evidence and whereafter a fair adjudication in consonance with Article 10-A of the Constitution, the matters will be brought to their legal and logical conclusion.
19. In matters where a case is remanded, the facility of civil revision is only (and repeat only) available when the order directing remand is either absolutely perfunctory, manifestly perverse or evidently illegal. In the present matter rather than being illegal or perverse, the judgments of the learned appellate Court are certainly in line with law and in fact the orders of the learned trial Court rejecting plaints under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC have been passed in a lackadaisical manner without due regard to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and which orders are even factually incorrect to the extent of the observations pertaining to fraud not being alleged in the plaint. The learned appellate Court has rightly interfered with the orders passed by the learned trial Court and corrected them.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in “Muhammad Hafeez and another v. District Judge, Karachi East and another” (2008 SCMR 398) at Paragraph No. 7 has held as follows:
“7. It is well-settled that in the event of conflict of judgments finding of Appellate Court are to be preferred and respected unless it is shown from the record that such findings are not supported by evidence; that the conclusions drawn are against the material on record; that the judgment of the Appellate Court suffers from misreading or non-reading of evidence or that the reasons recorded for reversal of judgment are arbitrary, fanciful and perverse.”
21. Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in “Enayat Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and others” (2007 SCMR 969) has held at Paragraph No. 10 as follows:
“10. It is well-settled proposition of law that in the event of a conflict between the judgments of trial Court and the First Appellate Court, preference should be given to the views of the Appellate Court, who had the opportunity of examining and analyzing the evidence of the parties. The rule is, however, neither absolute nor inflexible. In case the judgment of the Appellate Court is not well-founded and the reasons assigned for taking a different view from that of the trial Court appear to be not warranted by record, it cannot be preferred. In the present case, oral as well as documentary evidence has been analyzed carefully, correctly and consciously by the Appellate Court, which has been rightly affirmed and not interfered with by the High Court, therefore, the judgments of both the above forums are not open to any exception.”
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in “Noor Ahmed through L.Rs. and others v. Province of Punjab and others” (2016 SCMR 2174), and “Allah Ditta and others v. Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue and others” (2018 SCMR 1177) has clearly opined that a civil revision, against an order of an appellate Court whereby the appellate Court remands the matter to a trial Court, is not maintainable and for such a hurdle to be crossed the order of the appellate Court sanctioning remand has to be manifestly perverse or absolutely illegal.
23. In “Noor Ahmed through L.Rs. and others v. Province of Punjab and others” (2016 SCMR 2174), it has been held as follows:
“In the revision before the learned High Court primarily the order of remand dated 25.2.2010 was challenged which could not be assailed for the reason that it was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.”
24. In “Allah Ditta and others v. Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue and others” (2018 SCMR 1177), it has been held as follows:
“Order of remand is not a final order and simply sends the matter for re-examination for the second time. It does not finally determine the claim or the rights of the parties. The forum to which the case is sent for fresh decision is free to re-examine the case and pass a fresh judgment. Against any such subsequent decision, alternate remedy is available.”
25. What is most interesting and thought provoking in the matters before this Court is the relationship inter se the competing parties. While an adopted son has no hereditary rights to inherit the estate of his foster father, the entire inheritable property of the foster father has been sought to be allegedly usurped by him on account of Hibanamas and mutations the authenticity, credibility, validity and legal and religious worth of which is moot and can only be answered by
means of a full-fledged trial. What is also riveting is the question as to why the foster father of the petitioner and the real father of respondent, Mst. Rubina Shaheen, adopted different strokes and discriminated between his two real daughters. If he was minded to gift his property to one daughter there is no reason available on the case file to suggest that he had any grouse against Mst. Rubina Shaheen and wanted to deliberately keep her out from inheriting his estate. This in fact also indicates that a trial is absolutely necessary in the matter not only to allow the respondent, Mst. Rubina Shaheen, to establish her case but to also give an equal opportunity to Abdul Waheed and Mst. Samina Shaheen to demonstrate by way of production of evidence that the donor had reasons to consciously dis-include Mst. Rubina Shaheen from inheriting his estate. The beneficiaries shall have to do more than merely hide behind preliminaries.
26. Seen from any angle these civil revisions are meritless and are accordingly dismissed.
(Y.A.) Civil Revisions Dismissed
0 Comments