' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This petition challenges concurrent findings of the learned lower appellate Court that affirmed the decree of the learned trial Court declaring the respondent .No.1, Mst. Bilqees Begum to be heir in the estate of Niamat Ali deceased who was predeceased by his son Muhammad Shafi, father of the respondent No.
1. The central point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 has by the impugned judgment been granted the entire share of her father, Muhammad Shafi in the estate of Niamat Ali; whereas under rule expressed in section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, she is entitled to inherit only half share of her father. In the facts of the case, the respondent No.1 has been granted 2/7 share in the inheritance of Niamat Ali deceased whereas she was entitled 1/7 of share in such inheritance. The legal proposition urged by him relies upon a judgment of.The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Zainab v. Kamal Khan alias Kamala (PLD 1990 SC 1051) which observes as follows:-- "The succession in the present case opened on the death of Sufaid Khan in 1973. Rajoo, if alive, would have inherited the entire property of his father. Notionally, it would be presumed that Rajoo after inheriting the .Estate of his father, had died. Accordingly, the succession would re-open and all the legal heirs of the deceased would get their shares in accordance with the Muslim Law of Inheritance. The contention that the appellant would inherit the entire share of her father being the sole surviving child, is against the principle of . Muslim Law of Inheritance. She would get whatever she would be entitled to get on the death of her father. The principle of Muslim Law of Inheritance was that the near in degree would exclude the remotest. Before the introduction of section 4, the children of predeceased son were deprived of any share. The intention of section 4 is to safeguard the interest of the children of predeceased son and not to deprive the other heirs of the propositus of their due. Thus, section 4 cannot be interpreted in a way so as to exclude the other legal heirs of the deceased Sufaid Khan."
2. The principle laid down above is to the effect that a grandchild shall inherit in the estate of his/her grandfather according to his/her share under Muslim Laws in the entitlement that his/her predeceased father would have in the estate of his/her grandfather. As such the finding in this case that the respondent No.1 has inherited the full share of her father, Muhammad Shafi, is contrary to the principle enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court. She is entitled to only half of the said share under the Muslim Law of Inheritance and that comes to 1/7 of the estate of Niamat Ali. Accordingly the concurrent findings given by the learned Courts below are modified to the extent that rather than inheriting 2/7 share in the estate of Niamat Ali deceased, the respondent No.1 is entitled to the extent of 1/7 share in that estate. The decree is modified accordingly.
3. Learned counsel for the Pespondent No.1 has sought an observation with regard to the 1/7 share that now is available for the benefit of other heirs of Muhammad Shafi deceased. That aspect of the matter is beyond the purview of the controversy before this Court. Suffice it to say that any right under law may be enforced through remedies available from the competent Court of law. The civil revision is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost.