KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- The suit-land was originally allotted to one Dullah son of Nathu under the "Abadkari Scheme" in the year 1929. He died in 1930 and the land was mutated in favour of his widow Mst. Rehmat Bibi, under section 20(b) of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") Mst. Rehmat Bibi was transferred the proprietary rights on payment of sale price and other dues and a conveyance deed was executed in her favour in February, 1963. Consequent Mutation No.135 was attested in her favour on 29-4-1963 subsequently, vide Mutation No.136 dated 14-5-1964, Mst. Rehmat Bibi alienated this land in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. It seems respondents/their predecessor-in-interest filed an application for review of Mutation No.136 which was allowed. This led the petitioners to file the suit and to question the permission to review and the consequential orders/mutations dated 5-11-1963, 18-5- 1967 and 29=8-1984, on the ground of fraud and collusion with the Revenue Authorities. The, plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they were the owners of land. They also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining respondents from enforcing the orders impugned in the suit. The suit was contested but decreed by the trial Court vide judgment, dated 11-12-1990. On appeal before the Additional District Judge-I, Bahawalnagar the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed vide judgment, dated 8-2-1995. This dismissal has been maintained by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench vide its judgment, dated 9-10-2002 passed in Civil Revision No.87-D of 1995, against which the petitioners seek leave to appeal.
2. The High Court has proceeded on the premises that on the death of Dullah, Mst. Rehmat Bibi, his widow succeeded him in the year 1930 as a limited owner. The limited estate terminated with the enforcement of West Pakistan Shariat Application Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Shariat Act") with effect from 31-12-1962. With the termination of the estate the succession of Dullah re-opened and was to be decided in accordance with the Shariat Act. In the opinion of the High Court conveyance deed executed in favour of Mst. Rehmat Bibi in the month of February, 1963 did not constitute her as full owner. The High Court relied on the judgment of this Court reported as Mst.
Began v. Mst. Bai 1983 SCM R 80.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has questioned the view taken by the High Court by urging that Mst. Rehmat Bibi was not holding the land as a limited owner and she validly gifted the same in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. Learned counsel however, failed to substantiate the claim that Mst. Rehmat Bibi succeeded to Dullah as full owner. This Court has held in (supra) that section 20(b) of the Act, in fact incorporates the principles of customary law. Mutation entered in favour of Mst. Rehmat Bibi way back in the year 1930 also shows that Mst. Rehmat Bibi was succeeding as a limited owner. A conveyance deed was executed in her favour in the month of February, 1963 in utter disregard of the fact that with the application of Shariat Act on 31-12-1962, the limited estate terminated and Dullah's succession had to re-open in accordance with Shariat Law.
4. We find no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave is declined.