' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has been filed for review of the judgment dated 18-4-2005 passed in C.A. No, 987 of 2000. The main contention raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition is that parties belonged to the common ancestor and Mst. Daulan was a limited owner, therefore, on termination of her limited interest by virtue of section 2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shairat) Application Act, 1962, the property would be distributed amongst the succession of the last male owner in accordance with law of Shariah whereas this Court without taking notice of the material evidence of inter se relationship of the parties available on record, held that petitioners were not entitled to inherit the property in dispute. The learned counsel placing reliance on the pleading of the parties and unsigned/unattested copies of the Revenue Record, argued with vehemence that the relationship of the petitioners with the last male owner stood established beyond doubt and submitted that these documents were true copies of the originals which were exhibited in evidence before the trial Court but on confrontation that these documents were not certified copies of the exhibits and could not be considered and further the genuineness of these documents was also not ascertainable on the basis of the oral evidence of the parties, learned counsel in a sentimental manner emphasized that he was satisfied about the authenticity of these documents. We are afraid the satisfaction of the learned counsel regarding the authenticity or genuineness of a document is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of law and the Court must determine the factual position on the basis of legal evidence be that as it may, the scope of review is very limited and without pointing out a. Patent error of law or fact apparent on the record affecting the result, it is difficult to succeed in review.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently opposed this petition with the contention that neither Mst. Daulan was proved as limited owner nor the petitioners have been able to establish their right in the succession of last male owner, therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment under review in which all questions including the issues raised in this review petition have been exhaustively discussed.
3. The documents, referred above, being relied upon by the learned counsel although were placed on the file of main appeal but the same were not part of the judicial record to be looked into for any purpose and this may be pointed out that right of inheritance cannot be established by merely placing on record the pedigree-table and certain documents pertaining to revenue record, without specific proof of relationship with last male owner through the oral evidence of the person who has direct knowledge of such relationship. In the present case the existence of relationship between the parties has not been proved through any reliable evidence to establish on record that petitioners fall in the line of succession of last male owner and Mst. Daulan was holding the status of limited owner, consequently, in absence of any evidence, no presumption could be raised regarding her status as limited owner for the purpose of section 2-A of West Pakistan (Shariat Application) Act, 1962. A female owner may or may not have a limited interest under custom, therefore all female owners ipso facto would not be treated as limited owners. Be that as it may, in view of the factual position of the present case, no exception could be taken to the verdicts given by the civil court that the claim of petitioners was unfounded and Mst. Daulan was a full owner. The learned counsel without pointing out any substantial error in the judgment has tried to re-open the case on merits to convince us that the concurrent findings of all the three Courts on a question of fact were suffering from inherent defects. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, have not been able to find out any good reason for the review of the judgment and this petition being without any substance is dismissed.