' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The dispute between the partiesrelates to the partition of the estate left by Allah Rakha (theirpredecessor-in-interest), who had died and was succeeded by Mst. Imam Bibi (widow); Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Nazir (sons); - Mst. Khadija Begum, Mst. Fehmida Begum, Mst. Razia Begum, Mst. Safia Begum and Mst. Marryam Bibi (daughters), and Mehmood Akhtar (grandson from pre-deceased daughter). The four first named daughters brought a suit for partition against Muhammad Bashir, Mst. Imam Bibi, Mehmood Akhtar and Mst. Maryyam Bibi.
During the pendency of the suit, Mst. Maryyam Bibi vide application, dated 15-11-1986 relinquished her share in favour of Muhammad Bashi'. (her brother); she also appeared before the Court on the same day and made a statement to the above effect. However, at the time of the decree, the learned Civil Judge did not take note of this and accordingly the share of Mst. Marryam Bibi was not given to Muhammad Bashir. Aggrieved of this, Mst. Maryyam Bibi and Muhammad Bashir both filed an appeal, which was pending, when Mst. Marryam Bibi died, however, the learned appellate Court too has not granted the said share to Muhammad Bashir, hence this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Mst. Marryam Bibi admittedly had 7/64th share in the estate of Allah Rakha-a; she was an adult, a lady of sound mind; she was party to this litigation as a defendant and out of her free will, had relinquished her share in favour of his brother Muhammad Bashir, resultantly, the Courts below should have acknowledged the above and granted this share to the above named.
3. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the respondents states that this all is based upon fraud; Mst. Marryam Bibi neither moved any application nor appeared before the Court or filed any appeal.
4. I am afraid that the above contentions have no force. The application of Mst. Marryam Bibi was filed by Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate who admittedly was her counsel. According to the judicial record, to which the presumption of correctness is attached, she has appeared before the Court and acknowledged the relinquishment of her share; besides, she had also filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, when her share was not added to that of Muhammad Bashir. The argument that the application by Mst. MarryamBibi was not moved on the date, which was fixed for hearing in the matter and all has been done at the back of the respondents, suffice it to say that Mst. Maryyam Bibi was a party to the suit and had every right to relinquish her share in favour of whosoever at any time and without notice or the consent of the respondents and that is, what is established on the record to have been done by her. Resultantly, if the respondents have not been notified of the above, it would not mean that any of their right has been affected.
In the light of above, by allowing this revision petition, the impugned judgments and decrees are modified and it is held that 7/64th share of Mst. Marryam Bibi shall form part of the share of Muhammad Bashir, as having been relinquished by Mst. Maryyam Bibi in his favour.