' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Instant civil revision assailed judgments/decrees dated 13-4- 1995 and 21-3-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib, whereby petitioner's suit for declaration and her appeal were dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that Allah Ditta deceased predecessor-in-interest of the parties, was Abadkar in possession of suit property and petitioner is his daughter. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that on death of her father Allah Ditta, she inherited her Sharai share in the possessory rights held by the propositus. She further averred that though on death of her father, she became a co-sharer qua her brothers but the land remained in their cultivating possession and they had been paying her share of produce. According to her, three months earlier to the institution of suit she visited the Patwari concerned for leasing out her share and came to know that respondents 1 and 2 her brothers, in collusion with other respondents, got sanctioned mutation of inheritance to her exclusion. Petitioner challenged not only the mutation of inheritance of Allah Ditta but also attacked the entries in the Revenue Record made on the basis thereof. She sought a declaration to the effect that entries in the Revenue Record were fake, fictitious, fraudulent, void and ineffective qua her rights and prayed that she may be declared as owner to the extent of her share.
3. Respondents being defendants in the suit, contested the same by filing their written statement wherein they refuted the claim of the petitioner. Respondents admitted relationship of the petitioner with them but averred that she was not entitled to get any share in the tenancy right held by their father. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. After doing the needful, the learned Civil Judge, seized of the suit, dismissed 'the same, vide his judgment/decree dated 13-4- 1995.
4. Petitioner aggrieved of the dismissal of her suit, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as the same was also dismissed on 21-3-1996. Petitioner thereafter filed instant civil revision which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record has now been placed for final determination. Respondents in response to notice by this Court have appeared through their counsel.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Petitioner's status as daughter of Allah Ditta deceased is not denied. It is also admitted that Allah Ditta was Abadkar in possession of land in question under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, who died on 5-4-1940. Since the grant in the name of deceased Allah Ditta was under the Act (ibid), the terms thereof and its devolution shall also be controlled by the same enactment. Petitioner's relied prevision of the said Act dealing with the subject is section 19-A, according to which on enforcement of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Act, 1951 in case of death of any Muslim tenant, tenancy held by him was to devolve on his heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 and nothing contained in sections 20 to 23 of the Act of 1912 was to be applied but this provision of law, added by the Act of 1951 came into force much later than the death of Allah Ditta and sanctioning of his inheritance Mutation No,24 dated 11-6-1948. So is the case of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application Act, 1948 which was enforceable with effect from 15-3-1948. Both these provisions which were supportive or the case of the petitioner were enforced much later than the death of her father and under law those could not be applied to past and closed transactions by giving those retrospective effect.
6. At the time of death of Allah Ditta on 5-4-1948 section 20 of the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912 controlled the field and in case of death of any tenant, succession of his tenancy was to open as per terms mentioned therein. For ready reference and convenience, section 20 of the Act (ibid) is reproduced and reads as under:-- "Succession to tenants acquiring otherwise than by succession. -Subject to the proviso to section 14, when after the commencement of this Act, any original tenant dies the succession to the tenancy shall devolve in the following order upon---
(a) the male lieneal descendants of the tenant in the male line of descent. (The term, lineal descendant, shall include an adopted son whose adoption has been ratified by a registered deed);
(b) the widow of the tenant until she dies, or remarries, or loses her rights under the provisions of this Act;
(c) the unmarried daughters of that tenant until they die or marry, lose their rights under the provisions of this Act;
(d) the successor or successors nominated by the tenant by registered deed from among the following persons, that is to say, his mother, (his pre-deceased son's widow, his predeceased grandson's widow) his married daughter, his daughter's son, his sister, his sister's son, and the male agnate members of his family;
(e) the successor or successors nominated by the Collector from among the persons enumerated in clause (b) of this section."
According to the above reproduced provisions of law, tenancy rights held by Allah Ditta were to devolve on his male lineal descendants; widow of tenant till her death or re-marriage; unmarried daughters of the tenant till their death or marriage; any of the successors nominated by the tenant through a registered deed or successor/successors nominated by the Controller amongst the persons enumerated in clause (b) of the section. Petitioner no doubt was a daughter of Allah Ditta but she being married at the time of death of Allah Ditta, was not entitled to succeed him under the self-contained law, then applicable. Inheritance Mutation No,24 attested on 11-6-1948 is also supportive of the fact that succession of Allah Ditta was governed by section 20 of the Act (ibid) as it was sanctioned in the names of male lineal descendents of the tenant. Allah Ditta had died 2-1/2 months prior to the sanctioning of mutation and even if his date of death is accepted to be correct as 5-4-1940, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 was implemented with effect from 15-3-1948 which saved the earlier applicable Rules of Custom/Usage in all the matters regarding succession, whether testate or intestate. The rule of Custom acknowledged by section 20 of the Act (ibid) was thus, saved by the Shariat Act itself. This view gets support from the judgment by this Court in the case of Ghulam Dastgir and 6 others v. Hidayat and 2 others 1981 CLC 3.
7, As regards claim of the petitioner that she had been receiving the share of produce from her brothers, there is no solid proof in support of this assertion, as none of the witnesses produced by her uttered a single word about the quantum of amount/crop which was being given to her after death of her father. She while in the witness-box admitted that she did not pay any instalment or any other charges of the land till the time the proprietary rights were not conferred. There is not an iota of evidence on the tile to show that she ever participated in management/control of the land because according to her own witnesses she was married at the time of death of his father and was living away with her husband. The precedent judgment in the case of Jiwana v. Mst. Sahbi PLD 1954 Lah. 253 relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeds on altogether different facts as in this case one Sabta was granted tenancy rights under the above referred Act, who died on 28-8-1913 leaving no male issue and his land was mutated in the name of his widow. She subsequently, relinquished tenancy rights in favour of her daughter without obtaining sanction enjoined by section 19 of the Act of 1912. The transferee died on 23-7-1949 when the then Collector, Lyallpur sanctioned transfer in favour of her daughter giving cause to the collaterals of Sabta the original tenant, to file suit for possession of 3/8th share of the land and in this background the lis was decided by a Division Bench of this Court whereas in this case, tenancy rights holder was succeeded by his sons/male lineal descendents under section 20 of the Act. Scan of record and impugned judgments revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest without committing any error of law/facts or any illegality/irregularity envisaged by section 115, C.P.C.
8. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court was made out and consequently, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.