' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.--- The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur dated 24-4-2002, whereby Civil Revision No,76- D of 1987 of the respondents was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 7-12-1986 passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the trial Court dated 11-12-1986 was restored.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration and possession claiming 7/40 share in the suit property on the basis of inheritance from Kamal Khan challenging the mutations whereby they were deprived of inheritance. Kamal Khan died in the year 1965 and was survived by Mst. Bhirawan widow, Bashir Ahmad and Nazeer Ahmad the sons, and the plaintiffs/respondents who were the sons of Mst. Mubarak Khatoon, the predeceased daughter of Kamal Khan. Mst. Mubarak Khatoon died in the year 1948 and the respondents being her sons claimed 7/40 share in the estate of Kamal Khan. The suit was contested by the petitioners. It was denied in the written statement that the respondents were the legal heirs of Kamal Khan but in the evidence it was proved that Mst. Mubarak Khatoon was the predeceased daughter of Kamal Khan and that the respondents were her sons. According to the respondents Kamal Khan died in the year 1965 i,e, after the promulgation of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 whereas according to the petitioners Kamal Khan died prior to the promulgation of the said Ordinance. On divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and on appraisal of evidence decreed the suit -ride its judgment, dated 11-2-1986.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment the petitioners filed an appeal which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Rahimyar Khan vide his judgment, dated 7-12-1986 and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside.
4. The respondents filed Civil Revision No,76-D of 1987 against the aforesaid judgment/decree, which has been accepted as stated in para.1 above vide judgment, dated 24-4-2002, impugned herein.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record with his assistance. The relationship of Mst. Mubarak Khatoon (daughter) with Kamal Khan (father) was proved by the plaintiff through P.W.1 to P.W.5, who stated that Mst. Mubarak Khatoon was the real daughter of Kamal Khan and the plaintiffs were her sons. This relationship was admitted by the defendant Nazir Ahmad D.W.1 in his A statement before the Court. The inheritance mutation attested in 1967 and onward and other Revenue Record clearly indicate that Kamal Khan died after the promulgation of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and by virtue of section 4 thereof the plaintiffs/respondents who were sons of Mst. Mubarak Khatoon, the predeceased daughter of Kamal Khan, were entitled to inherit the share of their mother which comes to 7/40 in his estate.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any substance is dismissed and .