' TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Respondent Mst. Muhammad Bibi filed a suit for declaration on 2-3-1976 claiming herself to be the owner in possession of half of the suit property. She also challenged the gift purported to have been made by her in favour of Wazir Ali, petitioner with regard to the remaining half of the suit property to be fraudulent and void. Petitioner Wazir Ali also filed a declaratory suit on 25-5-1976 with regard to the same land claiming ownership on account of inheritance of one Deewan, who it was contended was transferred the proprietary rights of the suit land under the Horse Breeding Scheme. Both the suits were consolidated and by single judgment the suit of the respondent was allowed and that of the petitioner was dismissed. In appeal the judgment and decree was reversed. The judgment and decree .Of Appellate Court was challenged before the High Court in Civil Revision No,2209 of 1989 which was allowed vide judgment, dated 12-12-2002 and the case was remanded to learned Appellate Court with a direction "to provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on Issue No,6-B and' after recording of evidence if the parties so chooses, decide the' case afresh". Learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 10-3-2003 allowed the suit of the respondent and dismissed petitioner's suit. This judgment and decree was challenged before the High Court, which dismissed petitioner's Civil Revision, vide impugned judgment, dated 26-3-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to appeal on the ground that the Courts have not correctly appreciated that petitioner was a collateral of Deewan who had paid the price of the disputed land; that Sanad Shahi had been issued in his favour on 12-3-1944; that respondent Mst.
Muhammad Bibi claimed ownership as a heir of Allah Ditta whereas there is nothing on record to prove that the latter had deposited the price of the suit land in Government Treasury and that he was never the last male owner of the suit land.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent who was on watching brief defended the impugned judgment by submitting that it has been concurrently held by the Courts below that Allah Ditta was the last male owner; that Deewan was limited owner; that even if he had been granted proprietary rights he was merely conduit for the real owner and that the finding given by the Lahore High Court in earlier round of litigation (Civil Revision No,1635 of 1983) to the effect that Allah Ditta was the last male owner and that on the death of his widow Deewan was given tenancy on the condition that he would maintain the daughters of Allah Ditta, having not been challenged by the petitioner cannot be interfered with at this belated stage.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are not inclined to grant leave firstly because both the Courts have concurrently held that Allah Ditta was the last male owner and that respondent Mst. Muhammad Bibi was his daughter. There is nothing in evidence to indicate that Wazir Ali petitioner was in any manner related to him; secondly under section 21(b) of Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act, Mst. Shah Bibi who admittedly was earlier wife of Allah Ditta had acquired tenancy rights after his death; she had two daughters from the wedlock with Allah Ditta i.e, Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent and Mst. Allah Rakhi. After the death of Allah Ditta she married Deewan son of Punja. If on account of this marriage Deewan had managed to acquire proprietary rights the same were of no avail as under the aforesaid provision of law the rightful heirs of said land after the death of Mst. Shah Bibi were respondents Mst. Muhammad Bibi and Mst. Allah Rakhi.
The reliance of the Courts below on the law laid down in PLD 1964 Lahore 224 was, therefore, apt in the facts and circumstances of this case; thirdly petitioner Wazir Ali initially did not lodge any claim by filing a civil suit qua the suit property and he filed the suit only as a counter blast to the suit filed by Mst.
Muhammad Bibi on 2-3-1976; fourthly the inconsistent plea taken by the petitioner i.e, on one hand claiming that he was a donee of the land allegedly gifted to him by Mst. Muhammad Bibi and on the other claiming exclusive ownership by way of inheritance from Deewan would adversely reflect on his case.
5. For what has been discussed above there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.