' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 7-12-1998 passed by the Addl: District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was accepted and suit filed by them was decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18-9-1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that on 2-2-1987 Mst. Soni, predecessor of respondents, filed a suit for declaration challenging therein the alleged mutation of inheritance No,923 of her father Jam Mewa son of Mohibb attested in the year 1927. The plaintiff contended in her suit that she is the daughter of Jam Mewa, therefore, she and Mst. Jindo, widow of Jam Mewa, were entitled to inheritance. She also challenged all the subsequent transactions in favour of defendants in her suit. It was also alleged that her family was governed by the personal law i,e, Shariat in the matters of inheritance.
' The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions.
The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 7-12-1998 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before the first appellate court. Vide judgment and decree dated 18-9-1990 the first appellate court accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree of trial court dismissing the suit by way of which, suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the first appellate court. Hence, this civil revision directed by the defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants states that the suit was time barred; that the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit and that the first appellate court has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly decreed the suit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant in C.M. No,3913 of 2010 states that the findings recorded by the first appellate court are absolutely in accordance with law and suit has rightly been decreed by the first appellate court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also perused the record with their able assistance.
6. No doubt, it is a case of distribution of inheritance of a deceased. It is also equally important and considerable that in matters of inheritance court cannot be too technical, specially with regard to the limitation of filing of the suit. It is now established law that as a propositus dies, all his legal heirs automatically become co-sharer in the property left by him. It has not been denied that the plaintiff is the daughter of Jam Mewa. It is also settled that the distribution of the property of propositus in accordance with Shariat is a rule and a custom whereby the female legal heirs were deprived is an exception. Therefore, when the defendants were claiming exception, they were bound under the law to prove that exception for which they absolutely failed to prove any exception. In order to prove an exception to deprive any legal heir from the receipt of lawful share, very strong evidence is required. The defendants have not produced any evidence in this regard.
They were also required to prove clear ouster of plaintiff's right from the property which she has received in inheritance at the time of death of her father. This point is also missing from the evidence and the pleadings of the defendants. In this view of the matter, the first appellate court rightly reached to the conclusion by setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court.
7. In the light of what has been discussed above, I see no force in this civil revision, which is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.