' This judgment shall deal with and decide Civil Revision No.3048 of 1994 titled "Barkat Bibi and others v. Mst. Gaman Bibi and others" and Civil Revision No.2895 of 1994 titled "Muhammad Rafi alias Muhammad Rafique and others v. Mst. Gaman Bibi and others", as both the petitions are directed against the same judgments and decrees.
2. Karam Din died issue-less in 1952. He was admittedly survived by the following heirs:--
(i) Allah Rakhi Sister
(ii) Barkat Ali and Sardar Ali Sons of pre-deceased brother Umar Din.
' Inheritance Mutation No.778 was sanctioned giving Allah Rakhi 1/6th share and the said nephews Barkat Ali and Sardar Ali 5/6th share in the estate of deceased Karam Din. This mutation was erroneous and illegal being contrary to the mandates of Hanfi Muslim Law of inheritance. Allah Rakhi was in fact entitled to one half share, whereas the remaining one half share was to devolve upon Barkat Ali and Sardar Ali being sons of Umar Din i.e. The brother of deceased. Director Land Records on 23-7-1953, thus, directed review of said mutation. This direction was not implemented.
Allah Rakhi died in the year 1970 leaving behind Mst. Gaman Bibi as her daughter and Siraj Din, her husband, as legal heirs. The said Siraj Din re-married Mst. Zainab Bibi and had two daughters namely Fatima Bibi and Hamida Bibi (respondents Nos.3 and 4).
' On 30-3-1972 above said heirs of Allah Rakhi i.e. Mst. Gaman and Siraj Din orally sold land measuring 15 Kanals 2 Marlas (from 1/6th share of Allah Rakhi) to 6 brothers i.e. Muhammad Rafi etc. (5 of whom are petitioners in Civil Revision No.2895 of 1994 along with legal heirs of one deceased brother i.e. Muhammad Shafi). This sale was incorporated in Mutation No.1839. Inayat respondent filed suit for preemption and upon compromise was given 5 Kanals of land. This transaction was reflected through Mutation No.2105. The remaining land measuring 10 Kanals, 2 Marlas continued to be with above said vendees/petitioners. On 8-10-1990 Mst. Gaman and heirs of above said Siraj (who had also died in the meanwhile) filed a suit for declaration to seek one half share of Allah Rakhi's entitlement (instead of 1/6) devolved upon her and also sought cancellation of sale Mutation No.1839 in favour of the above said vendees-petitioners.
3. Contesting written statements were filed by all the parties including the said vendees whereupon the trial Court framed 10 issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. Finally, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit on 7-3-1992. Appeal was filed thereaginst. In the appeal petitioners- vendees i.e. Muhammad Rafi etc. Filed application for additional evidence. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissed the said appeal as well as application for additional evidence, hence the present revision petitions.
4. Learned counsl for the petitioners i.e. Barkat Bibi etc. (in Civil Revision No.3048 of 1994) was confronted with the table of shares as given in Hanfi Law of Inheritance prescribing one half share for sister of issueless deceased as was held by the learned Courts below in impugned judgments and decrees, the leaned counsel was unable to point out any legal infirmity in the conclusion recorded in the impugned judgments and decrees.
5. In view thereof there is no justification or reason to interfere in the well-reasoned and profoundly recorded judgments and decrees of the learned Civil Judge and that of learned Additional District Judge, Lahore concurrently adjudging the above question of law and facts involved in the controversy. As such Civil Revision No.3048 of 1994 is dismissed for being without any substance or merit and the impugned judgment and decrees are upheld to the extent of granting 1/2 share to Allah Rakhi.
6. As to Civil Revision No.2895 of 1994 filed by Muhammad Rafi etc. i.e. The vendees of land from Mst. Gaman and Siraj through Mutation No.1839, against the judgments and decrees, learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the record of the case. Mst. Gaman etc. In their suit had challenged mutation in favour of the said petitioners/vendees who had submitted contending written statement controverting all allegations of collusion and fraud etc. It is stated by the learned counsel for the said petitioners that the learned Civil Judge failed to frame any issue despite the controverted questions pleaded and raised in the written statement. It is also submitted that the learned Appellate Court also committed a material irregularity in failing to attend to this aspect of the appeal and did not give any finding whatsoever regarding non-framing of issue by the Civil Judge as to the vires and status of sale and mutation in their favour. Examination of plaint, written statement and issues framed thereupon does support the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. In view thereof, I have no option but to accept Civil Revision No.2895 of 1994 and set aside impugned judgments and decree dated 7-3-1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge and 19-6-1994 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, to the extent of conclusions recorded qua sale in favour of the petitioners. As a result the matter is remanded back to the learned Civil Judge, Lahore with directions to frame proper issue (s) upon controverting questions of facts as set out and pleaded in para. 6 of the respondents and para 6 of the written statement of the petitioners or otherwise in the pleadings of the parties. The learned Civil Judge, is directed to allow full opportunity of evidence to the parties and re-decide the case regarding vires and status of sale to the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.