' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--- The present revision petition was decided by my learned brother Mr. Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, J. As then he was vide judgment dated 30-3-2004.
The petitioner assailed the same through an Appeal No,591-L of 2009 before honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which was allowed vide judgment dated 3-3-2010 on the ground that an application for additional evidence filed by the petitioners was not decided by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his application for additional evidence was not decided by the court through which he wanted to place on record Mutations Nos.6309, 6310 dated 9-9-1950 and Mutation No,81 dated 25-9-1954 as according to him the petitioner's predecessor in interest purchased the land subject matter of these mutations independently which has wrongly been tagged with the estate of Noor Muhammad and as such these documents are necessary to be produced on record. He further submits that these documents are public documents and there is no doubt about their authenticity.
3. The dispute between the parties is about the estate of one Noor Muhammad who died issueless and after his death his estate was mutated in favour of his wife Mst. Ayisha as limited owner. After termination of limited interest of widows in 1962 per section 3 of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application Act, 1962) the property was reverted back to the legal heirs of deceased Noor Muhammad and his two widows become entitled 1/8th share under Islamic Law of Inheritance.
4. Petitioner's claim is that mutations referred in application for additional evidence are for that land which was not the part of estate of A deceased Noor Muhammad and as such their land cannot be made the part of estate of deceased Noor Muhammad.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents frankly conceded the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that if petitioner has any independent claim and their property is not part of estate of deceased Noor Muhammad that cannot be distributed among the legal heirs of deceased Noor Muhammad. He admits that respondents have no claim against the personal property of petitioner and as such the application is misconceived. The petitioner have an independent remedy.
6. It is an established principle of law that legal heirs are entitled to estate of deceased and in case any legal heir has purchased property B independently that could not be made part of estate of deceased. If the petitioner's property has wrongly been included in the estate of deceased the petitioner has the right to file objection petition under section 47 of C.P.C. For deletion of property from the estate of deceased Noor Muhammad and as such there is no need for any further evidence especially when learned counsel for the respondents has conceded the proposition canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner. On this sole ground that application for additional evidence was not decided by this Court, judgment dated 30-3-2004 was set aside. As the question of additional evidence has been settled and respondents have admitted that they have no claim against personal property of petitioner. The application become redundant. The judgment passed by this Court on 30-3-2004 holds filed and petitioners if has any grievance they can approach, the competent forum for redressal of their grievance. With these observations application for additional evidence is disposed of and the judgment dated 30-3-2004 is maintained.