' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 18-12- 1995 pasied by the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu, whereby the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the appeal of the respondents was accepted.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this civil revision are that Ahmad died in the year 1934, leaving behind his two widows Mst. Jantan, Mst. Gohar Bibi, two sisters, Mst. Noorai, Mst. Bhiranwan and one daughter Mst. Aimena. After his death, vide Mutation No.233 the property left by the deceased Ahmad was mutated in favour of his two widows Mst. Jantan and Mst. Gohar. Mst. Jantan widow of deceased Ahmad contracted a second marriage in the year 1935. Because of re-marriage of Mst. Jantan the property mutated in her favour as widow of deceased Ahmad was mutated in favour of Mst.
Aimena as daughter of deceased. Mst. Gohar other widow of the deceased Gohar died in the year 1937. After her death the property held by her as widow of the deceased Ahmad was also transferred in favour of Mst. Aimena. In this way the property which was held by two widows of the deceased Ahmad was transferred in favour of Mst. Aimena vide Mutations Nos.255 and 311. Mst.
Aimena too died in the year 1942. After her death the property in dispute was mutated in favour of her husband Ghulaman, Mst. Noorai and Mst. Bhiranwan. During the pendency of the suit, Mst.
Noorai had died. Claiming to be collaterals of the deceased Ahmad, Muhammad Bakhsh, Ghulam Hassan petitioner No.1, Allah Bakhsh respondent No.9, Ahmad Yar respondent No.17, Muhammad Aslam Muhammad Akram, Qaiser Jamil, Mst. Husina, Mst. Kaneez, Mst. Hafeez Bano, Mst. Musarrat Nazeer and Mst. Allah Wasai, respondents Nos.18 to 25 respectively, filed a suit for declaration, claiming that since they were the collaterals of the deceased, they were entitled to inherit the property in dispute and as such Mutations Nos.233, 311, 455 and 439 were illegal, void and ineffective against their rights.
3. Originally the plaintiffs had claimed ownership of the property in dispute under custom being collaterals of the deceased Ahmad but later on i.e. In the year 1990 by way of amendment in the plaint they also claimed the ownership of the property in dispute being shari heirs of deceased Ahmad.
4. The learned Civil" Judge, Kot Addu, vide his judgment dated 28-10-1991 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners. Against the said judgment, the respondents filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu, who vide his judgment dated 18-12-1995 accepted the same. Hence this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgments of the Courts below are at variance; that under section 2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 added by Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, the inheritance of the deceased Ahmad had to be divided in accordance with Muhammedan Law and not in accordance with custom and as such the petitioners were heirs of the deceased Ahmad and were entitled to get share of the property in dispute; that upon the death of the two widows of the deceased Ahmad, Mst. Aimena daughter of the deceased Ahmad could inherit 1/2 of 1/8 share in the property left by the last full owner and her husband Ghulaman after the death of Mst. Aimena could inherit 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/8 share, reliance in this behalf is placed upon Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1985 SC 407; Ismail and another v. Ghulam Qadir and others 1990 SCM R 1667 and Sharu and 2 others v. Mst. Fatima and others 1993 CLC 625 and that the judgment of the appellate Court is patently perverse, illegal and suffers from misreading and non- reading of evidence.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to this case because the parties were governed under custom according to which the husband of the deceased Mst Aimena used to inherit the property of his wife and in this way the deceased Ghulman predecessor in interest of the respondents had acquired ownership of the property in dispute.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Admittedly, Ahmad died in the year 1934 and he had left behind him two widows, namely, Mst.
Jantan, Mst. Gohar Bibi, two sisters namely, Mst. Noorai and Mst. Bhiranwan and one daughter Mst.
Aimena. After his death vide Mutation No.233 the property left by him was mutated in favour of his two widows, Mst. Jantan and Mst. Gohar. Mst. Jantan widow of the deceased Ahmad contracted second marriage in the year 1935. Because of remarriage of Mst. Jantan the property in dispute was mutated in favour of Mst. Aimena as daughter of the deceased. Mst. Gohar other widow of the deceased Ahmad died in the year 1937. After her death the property in dispute was also transferred in favour of Mst. Aimena. Mst. Aimena too died in the year 1942. After her death, the property in dispute was transferred in favour of her husband Ghulaman, Mst. Noorai and Mst. Bhiranwan sisters of the deceased Ahmad.
9. Perusal of the statements of Muhammad Bakhsh, one of the respondents before the learned Additional District Judge who appeared as P.W.1 and Ghulaman deceased, predecessor in interest of the respondents, who appeared as D.W.1, reveals that at the time of attestation of mutation of inheritance of Mst. Aimena, customary law was prevalent and the custom was that after the death of the wife her property used to be inherited by her husband. Since the family of the parties was governed under custom according to which after death of the wife the property used to be inherited by husband, therefore, no illegality can be found in the sanction of Mutation No.439. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. PLD 1985 SC 407, 1990 SCM R 1667 and 1993 CLC 625, are on the point of inheritance under the Muslim Law as envisaged in section 2- A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, which is reproduced below:-- "2-A: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 2 or any other law for the time being in force, or any custom or usage or decree, judgment or order of any Court, where before the commencement of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, a male heir had acquired any agricultural land under custom from the person who at the of such acquisition was a Muslim:--
(a) he shall be deemed to have become, upon such acquisition, an absolute owner of such land, as if such land had devolved on him under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat);
(b) any decree, judgment or order of any Court affirming the right of any reversioner under custom or usage, to call in question such an alienation or directing delivery of possession of agricultural land on such basis shall be void, inexecutable and of no legal effect to the extent it is contrary to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Act;
(c) all suits or other proceedings of such a mature pending in any Court and all execution proceedings seeking possession of land under such decree shall abate forthwith: ' Provided that nothing herein contained shall be applicable to transactions past and closed where possession of such land has already been delivered under such decree."
' As such those are not applicable to this case because the parties were governed under custom according to which the husband used to inherit the property of his D wife and in this way the deceased Ghulaman predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had acquired ownership of the property in dispute.
10. Even otherwise it is evident from Exh.D.1 that at the time of sanction of the mutation of inheritance of Mst. Aimena the collaterals of the deceased Ahmad had contested the same.
However, their plea was not accepted and the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Ghulaman, Mst. Bhiranwan and Mst. Noorai. The order for sanction of the mutation was then challenged by Allah Bakhsh through an appeal Exh.D.15. His appeal was dismissed vide order dated 7-9-1943. After rejection of his appeal, neither Allah Bakhsh predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners nor any of the collaterals of the deceased Ahmad further challenged the impugned Mutation No.439.
11. In view of the above circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge was right in observing that Mutation No.439 was sanctioned in favour of Ghulaman in view of the customary law which was prevalent at the time of the attestation of the same. Consequently, this civil revision fails and is dismissed.