Sardar Muhammad Ram Khan, J.--Muhammad Din and others have been granted leave to appeal from the judgment dated 4.4.2002 of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, whereby, on acceptance of Civil Revision of the respondents, the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned two Courts below were set aside and the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. From the plaint of the petitioners, it is indicated that the parties are litigating over the property left by Haji Ahmad son of Noor Alam. Their pedigree-table is given in the body of the plaint but the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners /plaintiffs conceded that the one given by the defendants/respondents in their written statement may be placed reliance upon. Thus the undisputed pedigree-table is reproduced below in order that the relationships and claims be properly comprehended:--
3. The property of Haji Ahmad, having died unmarried, is in dispute. At the time the succession opened, the two sharers that he was survived by, were Mst. Sabhai, his mother and Mst. Fateh Khatoon, his sister. They, as sharers, received 1/6 +1/2 = 4/6 or 2/3. The remaining 2/6 or 1/3 was to go to the residuaries. All the sons and daughters of Alam Sher, Sultan Ahmad, Alam Noor and Alam Khan are placed in the same degree as held by Haji Ahmad, the propositus. Thus all of them, who happened to be the plaintiffs, would normally inherit the remaining 2/6 in equal; shares.
4. But three sons and two daughters of Alam Sher (most of the present respondents) happened to have an edge over the rest of persons seemingly appearing in the same degree. It is a proved fact that Mst. Sabhai, the mother of Haji Ahmad propositus had married his uncle Alam Sher and thus the sons and daughters of Alam Sher happened to be uterine brothers and uterine sisters of the propositus. They are thus placed in a degree nearer to the propositus as compared to the rest of the collaterals. 2/6th share, as residue shall certainly go to the lot of the sons and daughters of Alam Sher. The same was rightly allowed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court who had very rightly set side the concurrent findings of two Courts below. The hard question of fact about the uterine relationship aforesaid was illegally ignored by the two Courts below and thus it was a serious mis-appreciation of fact as well as of law. There being no force in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed.