' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner Ghulam Rasool and his brother Muhammad Rafique (predecessor-in-interest of the pro forma respondents) filed a declaratory suit claiming title to the suit land, which is 1/8th share in a khata measuring 214 kanals, 7 marlas. The learned Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner and Muhammad Rafique vide judgments and decrees of the learned trialCourt, dated 21-2-2004 and of the learned appellate Court, dated 1-4- 2006. The petitioner alone impugns these concurrent decrees.
2. Ali Muhammad, who died in 1915, was the last male owner of the suit property. According to the petitioner, after his death, Mst. Hasso, who was his widow, became limited life owner of the property. Although she was a limited owner, in 1955, she gifted the property to one Ali Muhammad, who, she stated, was her nephew (bhateeja).
3. Ibrahim, father of the petitioner and Muhammad Rafique, filed a suit to assail the gift and to assert that he was reversioner, entitled to the suit property after the death of Mst. Hasso. Ali Muhammad, the donee of the gift aforesaid, was also impleaded as a defendant in the suit along with Mst. Hasso. The suit was decreed in favor of Ibrahim on 27-5-1987 (Exh.P-2). In the decree, Ibrahim was also declared to be a reversioner of Ali Muhammad, the last male owner. Here I may add that Ibrahim was the son of Piran Ditta, who, according to the petitioner, was the brother of Ali Muhammad.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of Mst. Hasso,the inheritance of Ali Muhammad was to be opened and decided in accordance with Islamic law. It is stated that as per Exh.P-2, their relationship with Ali Muhammad stood established and it also was adjudicated that the father of the petitioner, namely, Ibrahim was a reversioner. According to learned counsel, the decree (Exh.P- 2) was, in itself, sufficient for the purpose of establishing the entitlement of the petitioner and Muhammad Rafique as owners of the property in accordance with the Islamic Law of Inheritance.
However, despite this, Lal Din and Ali Muhammad (predecessors-in-interest of the contesting respondents) claiming to be the nephews (bhateejas) of Mst. Hasso, obtained mutation of inheritance Exh.D-3, dated 20-9-1971, in their favor for the entire suit property. It was argued that the mutation (Exh.D-3) being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
5. In addition to the above, it was argued that the contesting respondents are not entitled to any share in the suit property because they are not the legal heirs of Mst. Hasso having failed to prove that their predecessors-in-interest, namely, Lal Din and Ali Muhammad were nephews (bhateejas) of Mst. Hasso. Learned counsel stated that these respondents have produced two pedigree-tables and other evidence in an attempt to show that Lal Din and Ali Muhammad were related to Mst.
Hasso as her nephews but this evidence is self-contradictory and, therefore, cannot form the basis of the impugned decrees.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted at the very outset that the petitioner has obtained a decree in accordance with his claim as a legal heir of Ali Muhammad.
Learnedcounsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner's claim had been decreed. He, however, contended that the respondents could not be granted a decree for 1/4th of the suit property because they had failed to prove that their predecessors-in-interest, namely, Lal Din and Ali Muhammad, were related to Mst. Hasso as her nephews. I have considered this argument. The petitioner has no locus standi to make this assertion. If at all Mst. Hasso died without leaving any legal heirs, her 1/4th share in the suit property will vest in the Province by way of escheat. In such event, it will be the Province which will have a right to claim the share of Mst. Hasso.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. A copy of this judgment, however, shall be sent to the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, the Law Secretary, Government of the Punjab and the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, for action, if any, which they may consider appropriate, in the circumstances noted in paragraph-6 above.