' On 12-9-1989, Mst. Saboo, the predecessor-in-interest oie the respondents, filed a suit against the petitioners. In the plaint, it was stated that the last male owner of the suit-land was Muhammad Bakhsh son of Ghulam Muhammad who was survived by the said deceased plaintiff as daughter and Shera as son. This Shera is the father of Petitioners Nos.6 and 8 whereas the remaining petitioners are the progeny of Murad the other husband of Mst. Phaphal the mother of Shera and Saboo. According to her, after -the death of her father, she was being paid her share. During consolidation, she checked up the revenue papers and found that her name was excluded in the inheritance Mutation No.1160 attested on 20-9-1931. She accordingly sought a declaration that the said mutation is illegal and void and she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit-land. The plea taken in defence was that Muhammad Bakhsh was governed by customs in the matter of succession and the said lady was rightly excluded. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was A recorded. The suit was dismissed on 14-12-1992 by the Jearned trial Court but the matter was remanded in appeal on 22-3-1996. The suit was again dismissed by the learned trial Court on 25-10-2000. A learned Additional District Judge, Taunsa Sharif, heard the not appeal filed by the respondents and allowed the same on 30-1-2003 decreeing the suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the statements of the P.Ws. To urge that all of them have admitted that Muhammad Bakhsh was governed by customs. According to him, in the Riwaj- i-Aam Exh.D.8 as well as Exhs.P.11 and P.12 it has been duly stated that the Lagharis are governed by customs and the daughters do not inherit. Malik Ghulam Shabbir Langarial, Advocate/learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urges that the Riwaj-i-Aam is not being properly read by the learned counsel and upon a proper reading it goes to show that Lagharis who were Baloch are governed by Shariat and the daughters do inherit their father. He relied on the cases of Sabhai v. Ali and others (1908 P.R. 136) and Eda Khan v. Mst. Ghanwar and others (2004 SCM R 1524).
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that Muhammad Bakhsh was Baloch Leghari Dawani. I have also examined the statements of P.Ws. And I find that upon a piecemeal reading as done by learned counsel for the petitioners one does get impression as gathered by him but upon an entire reading of the said statements the position emerges otherwise. Be that as it may, there should be no difficulty at all to decide this case. Both the parties are relying upon Riwaj-i--Aam. The petitioners are relying upon Exh.D.8 while the respondents are also relying upon Exh.D.8 as well as Exhs.P.11 and P.12. Now it has come on record that Sardar Muhammad Jamal Khan Laghari is the head of the Baloch Laghari Tribe. In Exh.D.8 against question No.28, the instance quoted is that the land of Razi son of Dolat, Laghari Dawani Baloch, the estate was distributed in accordance with Shariat. Under the note "exceptions", it was stated that upon the death of Nawab Muhammad Khan, Laghari Baloch, his son 'Sardar Muhammad Jamal Khan was appointed as the heir. To my mind, the tenor of the said Riwaj-i-Aam is to the effect that the general rule is that Shariat is applicable. This is the Riwaj-i-Aam for the year 1920. Now Exh.P.11 is answer to question No.35 and with reference to instances quoted for Baloch Natkani it is stated that Shariat is followed. Regarding the other Baloch Tribes, it, is stated that except Khosas and Qaisaranis all other follow Shariat in accordance with the Baloch Natkanis.
4. Exh.P.12 is answer to question No.40 of Riwaj-i-Aam. The answer is that in the matter of Baloch Natkani according to Shariat, the daughters get a share in any case and regarding the other Baloch Tribes the answer is that except Qaisaranis and Khosas they followed Natkanis. This is followed by instances pertaining to Qaisaranis and Khosas.
5. Now the said decision by the Chief Court is one of the instances quoted in the said Riwaj-i-Aam and according to the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Kensington, the Laghari Balochis of the Sanghar Tehsil of Dera Ghazi Khan District follow Shariat and the daughters are entitled to succeeded to their shares in their father's ancestoral property in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law in the presence of male agnatic heirs. I may note here that the learned counsel for the parties agree that Sanghar is the/old name of Taunsa.
6. Now the facts in the said case of Eda Khan decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan are strikingly similar to the facts of the present case. It pertains to the matter of inheritance to the estate of a Laghari Baloch of Tehsil Taunsa, District Dera Ghazi Khan whose inheritance mutation was-also attested in the year 1931 and the daughter of the deceased filed a suit against his brother claiming share in the estate of her father and the defence was that he was governed by customs.
The same Riwaj-i-Aain was considered by their Lordships and the judgment passed by this Court to the effect that the Laghari Balochis are governed by Shariat in the matter of succession and the daughters do inherit was upheld.
7. The civil revision is without any force and is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.