1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.---This is a suit for declaration injunction, partition and accounts in which initially there were three plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim entitlement in the estate left by Muhammad Shafiq Khan, the deceased. Plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 claimed entitlement as sons of predeceased brother of the deceased while plaintiff No,3 claims entitlement as son of pre-deceased sister of the deceased. It appears that the matter with regard to the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 was settled and therefore, their names were struck off from the plaint on 23-1-2001. When the matter was fixed for recording of evidence, both the counsel for the parties stated that as the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased is not in dispute and the only question that remains to be determined is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to inherit in the estate of the deceased. They stated that parties do not wish to lead evidence and the matter may be posted for arguments. The matter was adjourned for hearing of arguments.
2. ' I have heard the arguments of Mr. Khalid Javed learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Haider Raza Naqvi learned counsel for the defendant No, 1.
3. ' While examining the file it was noted that through order, dated 22-1-1999 Suit No,561/1996 (new Suit No,192 of 2003) was consolidated with this suit. Defendant No,1 in this suit was the plaintiff in the other suit. It appears that Suit No, 561/1996 (new Suit No, 192 of 2003) was fixed on 21-4-2006 before my brother Sajjad Ali Shah, J. When an application under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. Was filed and that suit was dismissed as withdrawn. The defendant No,2 in this suit has filed her written statement but the record shows that her counsel has not been appearing for the last many dates.
4. ' The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff claims entitlement to inheritance on the analogy of section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (the Ordinance) as he is the son of the pre-deceased sister of the deceased and has cited the cases of Mst. Zafran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2002 FSC 1), Mst. Saima Naz and others v. Shaikh Pervaiz Fazal and others 2002 SCM R 164), Mst. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Mst. Rehana Nasreen and others (2004 MLD 1304), Mst.
5. Zainab v. Kamal Khan alias Kamala (PLD 1990 SC 1051) and Mst. Iqbal Jan v. Mst. Habib Jan and others (1992 SCM R 935).
6. ' On the other hand Mr. Haider Raza Naqvi has argued that section 4 of the Ordinance has no application to the case in hand as the deceased has left him surviving his sister the defendant No,2 who is a sharer and former plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 as residuraies and the present plaintiff being a distant kindred is not entitled to any inheritance. He has referred to section 52 of the Mohammadan Law by Mulla.
7. ' I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and have examined the law on the subject. So far section 4 of the Ordinance is concerned, the same being on the statute book at the time of filing of this suit has no application to the case because it only provides for per stripes share on opening of, succession to the children of deceased son and daughter of the propositus.
8. As is apparent, this section applies to the relations who are specifically mentioned in it and to no other. Plaintiff is not the relation mentioned in this section. As regards the question of analogy, it may be noted that the matter of inheritance among Muslims is strictly governed by law and its provisions are well-defined leaving no ambiguity about the persons who are entitled to inheritance in the estate of the deceased. In the present case the deceased has left him surviving a full sister and also two sons of pre-deceased brother. In terms of the table of sharers provided in the Mulla's Mohammadan Law, a full sister is shown to be 1/2 sharer while table of residuaries include full brotherson. The son of pre-deceased sister is not mentioned in the table of sharer nor in the table of residuaries. The children of a pre-deceased sister are included in subsection (2) of section 68 of Mulla's Mohammadan Law, which lays down the list of distant kindreds. The distant kindred only inherits when there are no residuaries. Once it is established that the deceased has left as his heirs the sharers and residuaries, there will be no occasion for inheritance being claimed from the estate of the deceased by a distant kindred. Plaintiff admittedly being son of pre-deceased sister is a distant kindred and in the presence of sharer the residuaries will not inherit from the estate of deceased when relationship of the plaintiff with deceased is admitted and his place in the matter of inheritance is determined, such place by mean of analogy to section 4 of the Ordinance cannot be changed as he will remain what he is. The suit is therefore dismissed.