' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 12-6-1982 the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners. In the plaint, it was stated that the last male owner of the suit- land, mentioned therein, was Nathu son of Nikka on whose death vide Mutation No. 177 attested on 13-1-1935 the land was mutated in favour of his widow Mst. Hayat Bibi as a limited owner. She proceeded to gift away 66 Kanals, 13 Marlas out of the suit-land to Shafi Muhammad petitioner No.l who was the son of her daughter Mst. Muhammad Bibi. A declaratory suit was filed and the gift was declared to be void and ineffective upon the reversionary rights vide decree dated 4-4-1959. It was explained that the said declaratory suit was filed by respondents Nos.l and 2 while the 3rd plaintiff was Shukar Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Nos.2 to 17. Hayat Bibi died in 1966 and succession to the estate of Nathu opened and the parties became co-sharers. It was then stated that without impleading the respondents, the petitioner No.l, Hassan and Nazir Hussain obtained a collusive decree on 20-9-1971 which is result of fraud and ineffective upon their rights. On the basis of this decree, Mutation No.2 was attested on 24-8-1978 which is also illegal. A. Declaration was accordingly sought that the respondents are co-sharers in the suit- land being reversionary of Nathu. In the written statement filed by the petitioners, it was admitted that Nathu was the last owner; that Hayat Bibi was a limited owner and that the factum of earlier decree was also admitted. However, it as stated that the suit having not been filed within the time prescribed in the Punjab Limitation Act, 1920, the rights of the respondents have been extinguished. Another plea taken was that Shukar Din was a nearer collateral in respeGt of the limited estate held by Hayat Bibi. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 27-6-1983 on the ground that it was barred by time. A learned A.D.J., Narowal, dismissed the first appeal on 21-1-1985. C.R. No.l394-D of 1985 was allowed by this Court on 31-5-1999 and the suit was remanded back. It was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 18-7-2000. A learned ADJ, Narowal, allowed the first appeal of the respondents and decreed the suit on 24-4-2001.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no evidence on record that Fazal Din, the predecessor-in-interest of . The respondents was alive when Nathu died. Learned counsel for the respondents refers to the evidence on record to urge that Fazal Din was alive when Nathu died.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have already narrated above the material contents of the pleadings of the parties. The facts are almost admitted. Although it was stated that Shukar Din was a collateral nearer in degree yet there is no such plea that Fazal Din was not alive when Nathu died. Needless to state that under the provisions of the Shariat Application Act of 1962, upon termination of a limited estate, the matter has to be taken back to a point of time when last male owner died and the estate is to be distributed accordingly. The pedigree table drawn by the learned ADJ in his impugned judgment is not disputed by any of the learned counsel. The common ancestral is Manna. He has two sons Kala and Bhaga. Nathu son of Nikka is the grandson of said Kala while Shukar Din son of Chaur is the grandson of Soba son of Bhaga find Fazal Din son of Gajju is the grandson of Manna son of Bhaga. It will, thus, be seen that both Shukar Din and Fazal Din stand in equal degree to Nathu son of Nikka. There is no dispute that Muhammad Shafi petitioner No.l is to get 1/2 share of his mother Muhammad Bibi daughter of Nathu as also 1/8 share of Mst.
Hayat Bibi his maternal grand-mother. His share comes to 5/8.The remaining 3/8 is to go equally to the respondents, the successors of said Fazal Din and the petitioners Nos.2 to 17, the successors of said Shukar Din.
4. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, P.W.l Bashir Ahmad son of Fazal Din aged 60 years on 16-3-2000, in response to a question in the cross-examination, stated that Fazal Din died four years after the partition of the subcontinent. On the other hand, D.W.l Ghulam Mustafa stated that Shukar Din was the nearest collateral and in his cross-examination, he denied that the respondents are the collaterals of Nathu.
5. In the said state of evidence on record, to my mind, it stands proved that Fazal Din and Shukar Din both were alive when Nathu died and were entitled to inherit the residue equally. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.