' On 1-9-1962, the plaintiffs/ respondents filed a suit, inter alia, against the petitioners. In the plaint it was stated that the suit-land detailed in para.3 of the plaint was owned by Ghulam Hussain son of Azeem who died in the year 1943. I may note here that there is no dispute regarding pedigree-table drawn in para.4 of the plaint. The said person was governed in the matter of succession by the agricultural custom. After his death vide Mutation No,43 attested on 15-6-1945 1/3rd share was mutated in favour of his son Saleh Muhammad, 1/3rd in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh son of Sardar, a pre-deceased son of Ghulam Hussain, and the remaining 1/3rd was mutated in favour of Mst. Hayat Bibi widow of Khan Muhammad another pre-deceased son of Ghulam Hussain. Now it is stated in the plaint that the said 1/3rd share was mutated in favour of Mst. Hayat Bibi as a limited owner till death or remarriage. The said lady got re-married in the year 1946 and the land was mutated in favour of Mst. Noor Elahi (daughter of said Khan Muhammad) on the same terms. It was then stated in the plaint that Mst. Noor Elahi contracted marriage five years before the institution of the suit. Consequently her limited estate stands terminated and reverts back to Malik Ghulam Hussain and devolved upon the said Saleh Muhammad who was his only surviving son when Ghulam Hussain died. The plaintiffs/respondents are the L.Rs, of the said Saleh Muhammad. The suit was contested by the said two ladies i.e, the daughter and the widow of Khan Muhammad (defendants Nos.1 and 5 respectively in the original suit). As stated by me above the fact that Ghulam Hussain was the owner of the land and the pedigree drawn in the plaint were not questioned. It was also admitted that Ghulam Hussain was governed by custom in the matter of succession. It was also .Admitted that the land was mutated in favour of Mst. Hayat Bibi as widow of Khan Muhammad. It was also admitted that Mst. Hayat Bibi remarried in the year 1946 and her estate was mutated in favour of her daughter Mst. Noor Elahi. However, it was asserted that Mst.
Noor Elahi got the land as a full owner. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded.
The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17-12-1980. A learned A.D.J. Multan dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioners on 5-11-1986.
2. Mian Shamas-ul-Haq Ansari, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Mst.
Hayat Bibi succeeded collaterally as a widow of Khan Muhammad and consequently upon her remarriage the land was not reverted to Ghulam Hussain but to her husband with reference to whom the land was initially mutated in her favour. He relies upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of "Mst. Fatima Bibi v. Muhammad Shah and others" PLD 1951 Lah. 147, "Akhtar Abbas and others v. Nazar Abbas and others" AIR 1946 Lah. 10 and "Chiragh Din and others v. Ujjagar Singh and others" AIR 1946 Lah.
16. He then contends that the limited estate vesting in Mst. Noor Elahi terminated under the provisions of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 and since by that time Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had come into force, she would inherit her share by virtue of section 4 of the said Ordinance.
3. Messrs Malik Iqbal Rasool and Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig, Advocates for the respondents on the other hand argued with reference to the Riwaj-i-am of Multan District that both the ladies, inherited one after the other as limited owners and the limited estate of Mst. Noor Elahi terminated by her marriage in the year 1957 and the land accordingly reverted to Ghulam Hussain and thereafter devolved upon Saleh Muhammad who was the only surviving son at the time of death of Ghulam Hussain.
4. I have examined the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the material facts are concerned there is no dispute. I also find that Noor Muhammad P.W.2 stated that Mst. Noor Elahi got married 7/8 years before the date of his statement which was recorded on 8-3-1965, while Rahim Bakhsh one of the defendants stated as D.W.3 on 13-10-1965 that the marriage took place 13/14 years ago. It is, therefore, established on record that Mst. Noor Elahi certainly got married Icing before the coming into force of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 as also the said Act of 1962.
5. Now the parties in this case are Jats Mauras. Mian Shamas-ul-Haq Ansari, Advocate has shown me the Customary Law of the Multan District (Riwaj-i-am), compiled by H.W. Emerson, D.C., as attested at the revised Settlement, 1923-24. I find that all the Jats tribes were consulted at the time of preparation of the said 'Riwaj-i-am'. It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Mst. Shahzadan Bibi and others v. Amir Hussain Shah" PLD 1956 SC 227 that where a tribe is consulted at the preparation of the Riwaj-i-am, an initial presumption arises that a member of that tribe is governed by custom. It has further been observed by their lordships that statements in a Riwaj-i-am, which is a public record prepared by a public officer in the discharge of hi:: duties and under Government rules, are a strong piece of evidence even without instances, their contents are true and must be accepted unless rebutted. Now in reply to question which is formulated as follows:-- "Section V.--Succession.
' Question 35.---If a man dies leaving a widow or widows, a son or sons, a daughter or daughters, brother and other relatives, upon whom will the succession devolve? State the order of succession."
'All the tribes consulted with the exceptions noted therein replied that succession in the first place goes to the sons and their direct male lineal descendants and, failing them, to the widows for lives and, in the latter's absence, to unmarried daughters until marriage, and, failing them, to the collaterals within four degrees, among whom the right of representation exists, all heirs sharing equally by degrees.
6. Now all the said judgments being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are based on the said right of representation which of course becomes irrelevant when there are no sons, widows, daughters and brother. The question of determining representative of an estate and consequently collateral inheritance would arise when the matter is between the collaterals within four degrees. The ratio of all the judgments is that sex is no bar in the matter of entitlement to represent the estate in the said degrees.
7. It is obvious that in the present case the Mutation No,43, Exh.P.5 was attested on the death of said Ghulam Hussain in accordance with the said custom recorded by Mr. Emerson pertaining to Multan District. 1/3rd was mutated in favour of the surviving son, 1/3rd in favour of the son of the pre- deceased son and 1/3rd upon the widow of the third son till death or re-marriage. It is an admitted position on record that the estate of Mst. Hayat Khatoon terminated upon her remarriage and there upon it was mutated in favour of Mst. Noor Elahi, the daughter till re-marriage under said custom.
8. I have already stated above that upon a reading of the evidence in this case Mst. Noor Elahi got married at a point of time before the promulgation of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and the said Act of 1962. Her limited estate, therefore, terminated on the happening of the said event and the land reverted to Ghulam Hussain to be inherited by his surviving son Saleh Muhammad, the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs. The second contention of the learned counsel also, therefore, fails. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.