' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- This civil revision was allowed by me vide judgment dated 25-7-2003.
C.M. No.378-C of 2004 was filed by the respondents, which stands disposed as I directed the learned counsel for the parties to address me on the merits of the case. The matter has been reheard accordingly.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his contentions already noted. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned A.D.J. Has correctly relied upon the earlier judgment Exh.D.l in the matter of possession, notwithstanding the fact that the same does not constitute res judicata. He has also tried to support the finding that the petitioner is estopped from filing the suit. He has, however,- not questioned the findings recorded by both the learned Courts below that Tasleem petitioner was the son of Sultan and as such entitled to in merit the estate along with his three brothers.
3. I have examined the copies of the records. It may be noted that both the learned Courts below have held that the petitioner is the son of the Sultan and consequently entitled to inherit the estate in equal shares along with his other brothers. So far as the judgment Exh.D.l is concerned, the learned A.D.J. Has himself recorded a finding that it does not at all constitute res judicata. So far as the question of possession is concerned, once it has been held that the petitioner is a cosharer in the estate of his father, he will be deemed to be in joint possession of the said joint estate. Needless to state that, admittedly, two of the brothers, in fact, acknowledged the right of the petitioner to inherit the land and they effected a transfer of the land to the extent of his share in favour of the petitioner. It is also a matter of record that on the death of Mst. Shahzadi all the four brothers had inherited her estate being sons of Sultan Khan. In his view of the matter, there was no question of estoppel neither the suit become barred by time.
4. Since the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents are not borne out from the record, I do not find any ground being made out for re-calling my earlier judgment. The civil shall stand decided and allowed in terms of the said judgment dated 25-7-2003 and the reasons, stated in the present judgment. No orders as to costs.