' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--Mst. Sajjad Fatima, (daughter of Falak Sher) had filed a declaratory suit that Tamleek incorporated in Mutation No,299 dated 21-12-1974 regarding land measuring 104- Kanals, made by Falak Sher in favour of Muhammad Bashir his son was void and ineffective. She claimed that being daughter of Falak Sher she was entitled to the share in the leftover of her father along with the other legal heirs. Since on the basis of the said mutation Muhammad Bashir had sold some land in favour of Ashiq Hussain (petitioner), the said vendee was impleaded as one of the defendants i.e, defendant No,12. Muhammad Bashir defendant No,1 in the suit and defendants Nos.2 to 11, (his sisters) including legal representatives of Riaz Fatima (deceased) contested the suit by filing written statements, pleading the factum of Tamleek/mutation in favour of Muhammad Bashir defendant No,
1. Ashiq Hussain contested the suit that he was vendee in possession in good faith. Initially the issues were framed in the suit on 26-7-1981 but on 4-2-1984, Muhammad Bashir made a statement that he was prepared to give share to his sisters in accordance with Sharia.
Issues were thereafter amended by the trial Court. After undergoing various stages during the trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 7-3-1990. Only Mst. Sajjad Fatima, the plaintiff, preferred appeal thereagainst which appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 25-7-1990. Ashiq Hussain has challenged the appellate judgment through this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. In order to bring to an end this longstanding litigation, the petitioner has offered to surrender land measuring 7- Kanals in favour of Mst. Sajjad Fatima/respondent No,1, plaintiff in the suit. Such an offer has been accepted by the learned counsel for respondent No,1/ plaintiff. The claim of the respondent/ plaintiff thus to the extent of her share stands satisfied and there remains no dispute between them.
4. Since, however, the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 25-7-1990 proceeded to observe that "appellant along with respondents Nos.2 to 11 and respondent No,1 are also entitled to the inheritance of Falak Sher and present Mutation No,299 has got no legal effect qua the rights of the appellant", a sort of confusion has arisen inasmuch as that on the one hand Mutation No,299 has been held to be of no legal effect qua the rights of the appellant (now respondent No,1) at the same time, respondents Nos.2 to 11 and Muhammad Bashir were also held entitled to inheritance of Falak Sher. It may be noticed that not only that they had contested the suit of the plaintiff before the trial Court, no appeal or cross-objections were filed by them before the lower appellate Court.
But in view of the observation made by the learned Additional District Judge, they are now laying claim in the leftover of Falak Sher deceased. The petitioner herein who was defendant No,12 in the suit had purchased some land from Muhammad Bashir who was found by the trial Court to have acted in good faith, which finding has been reversed by the appellate Court. He has now offered to surrender land measuring 7-Kanals in favour of Mst. Sajjad Fatima, the plaintiff, in the suit with an objective to end the litigation. Thus in this context the rights and interests of the parties need to be adjusted.
' I am mindful of the trend of authorities on the subject particularly after the pronouncement of law by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 about the rights of woman in matters of inheritance. The provisions of Rule 4 and 33 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are also in my view. However, the outstanding features worth- noting of this case are that; (i) The suit was filed by Mst. Sajjad Fatima only. (ii) Muhammad Bashir her brother, and all her sisters (who were defendants) opposed and contested the suit for upholding of Mutation No,299. (iii) Muhammad Bashir later on conceded the claim of his sisters by making statement dated 4-2-1984 that he was ready to give share to them in accordance with Sharia. (iv) Though the statement of Muhammad Bashir has been held by the appellate Court to be of "his free consent" and legal, he has not chosen to assail the same the judgment of appellate Court. (v) Sale in favour of Ashiq Hussain defendant No,12, was based upon the Mutation then existing, according to which public record Muhammad Bashir was owner, the said vendee acted accordingly and purchased some land from Muhammad Bashir. (vi) Inter se the contesting parties namely Mst. Sajjad Fatima (plaintiff) and Ashiq Hussain (respondent No,12) there remains no dispute, due to concession/surrender of 7-Kanals of land in her favour by the latter.
' Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is modified to the extent that defendants 2 to 11 the daughters of Falak Sher will be entitled to satisfy their claim from Muhammad Bashir in view of statement dated 4-2-1984 which has been upheld by the appellate Court and not challenged by Muhammad Bashir.
' The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.