Law:

Section:

J U D G M E N T   MALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN, J.  Through this Civil Revision, the petitioners have assailed the validity and legality of consolidated judgment and decree dated 17.05.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby learned appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners with costs whereas appeal filed by the respondents was accepted with costs. It has further been prayed that suit filed by the petitioners be decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with regard to suit land situated in Mouza Chak Abbas and in Mouza Kot Qutab Tehsil and District Rahim Yar Khan owned by deceased Din Muhammad. It is averred in paragraph No.1 of the plaint that Sama, Din Muhammad and Jung were three brothers. Din Muhammad died issueless. Jung was succeeded by Allah  Ditta and Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor of petitioners/plaintiffs, while Sama was succeeded by Ghaus, predecessor of respondents/ defendants. It is asserted in the plaint that after the death of deceased Din Muhammad, predecessors of petitioners Allah Ditta and Ghulam Muhammad and predecessors of respondents Ghaus were entitled to inherit equal shares from the Estate left by deceased Din Muhammad. It is averred in the plaint that predecessor of the parties possessing their respective equal shares after the death of deceased Din Muhammd as being his legal heirs. It is alleged in the plaint that predecessor of respondents Ghaus secretly got transferred land left by deceased Din Muhammad in Mouza Chak Abbas in his name on the basis of a false and fictitious document of will vide Mutation No.436 dated 22.09.1945. He also got transferred land left by deceased Din Muhammad in Mouza Kot Qutab in his own name which was allotted to deceased Din Muhammad under RL-II No.82. It is further asserted that inheritance Mutation No.436 and transfer of land situated in Mouza Kot Qutab in the name of predecessor of respondents could not come into the knowledge of predecessors of petitioners as parties were in possession in accordance with their respective shares and predecessor of respondents never tried to disturb…