CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.-By way of this Civil Revision judgment and decree dated 28-3-1995, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran, and upheld by the learned District Judge, Lodhran vide his judgment and decree dated 15-10-1995, have been assailed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition, as given in the plaint, are that the plaintiff/respondent No,l Haji Sher Muhammad filed a suit for declaration regarding the property owned by Muhammad Ismail son of Namdar obtained through registered Sale-deed No, 266, dated 27-1-76 followed by a Mutation No, 199, dated 18-3-1976. Muhammad Ismail died issueless. His inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Abdur Rehman and Mst. Aimana son and daughter of Muhammad Siddique vide Mutation No, 199, dated 13-9-1976. It was asserted by respondent No,l that he was also a residuary of the deceased but was excluded from die inheritance. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--
(i) Whether the respondent/defendant have violated the interim injunction and thus have committed contempt of Court? If proved to which relief the Petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to? OPP
(ii) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(iv) Whether the suit is in time? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his conduct? OPD
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit-land as legal heir to Ismail son of Namdar? OPP
(vii) If issue above is proved, whether the impugned sale-deeds and subsequent proceedings are illegal, void hence inoperative on the plaintiffs right? OPP
(viii) Whether the defendants Nos.2 to 4 have perfected their title by way of adverse possession over the suit land? OPD 2 to 4?
(ix) Whether the defendant No,7 is bona fide purchaser for consideration of the suit-land? OPD
(x) Special costs.
3. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the learned appellate Court. Hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No,l Haji Sher Muhammad was not entitled to inheritance as he did not come within the purview of residuary.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has supported the impugned judgments.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record.
7. The moot point in the case is as to whether Haji Sher Muhammad plaintiff/ respondent No,l is entitled to inherit the property of the deceased in accordance with Islamic Laws. There is no cavil to the proposition that Haji Sher Muhammad is cousin of the deceased Ismail whose inheritance is in question. Firstly Abdur Rehman and Mst. Aimana are son and daughter of cousin of Muhammad Ismail, whose name is Muhammad Siddique. Haji Sher Muhammad is also a first cousin of the deceased. Father of Abdur Rehman and Mst. Aimana was also a first cousin of deceased but he had died prior to the death of the deceased Muhammad Ismail.
8. Therefore, according to principle of Muhammadan Law enshrined in section 69 "Nearer in decree excludes the more remote" the petitioner is not entitled to inheritance of the deceased. Respondent No,l shall exclude Abdur Rehman and Mst. Aimana respondents Nos.2 and 3 being remote in degree.
9. So far as the petitioner is concerned, as established from the record that he has not better claim than Abdur Rehman and Mst. Aimana because he is just a purchaser of the land from them. In this regard, he is not entitled to any relief when Abdur Rehman and Mst. Aimana respondents are excluded from the inheritance.
10. Besides no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out which can demonstrate the jurisdictional defect committed by the learned lower courts.
11. In sequel thereof, the revision petition is dismissed.