AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. - Through this civil revision, the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1998 passed by the learned Additional District fudge, Rahim Yar Khan, have been challenged, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was accepted, by way of which, judgment and decree dated 7.5.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sadiq Abad, decreeing the suit were set aside.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that petitioners-plaintiffs ed a suit for declaration on 30.7,1992 contending therein that they are the is sons of brother of propositus, namely, Muhammad and challenged tation of inheritance No. 365 attested on 31.12.1924 in favour of predecessor defendants, namely, Ghulam being son of brother of propositus Muhammad all the subsequent mutations.
Filing written statement suit was contested by the defendants. From the .Gent pleadings of the parties Trial Court framed issues and invited. The Is to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions. After close of trial, vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.1994 suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred before the first Appellate Court, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 17.6.1998 and judgment and decree of Trial Court were set aside.
Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs states that plaintiffs being sons' sons of brother of propositus are also entitled to inherit with predecessor of defendants, who is son of brother of propositus.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- defendants states that whole of the property was rightly given to the predecessor of defendants, namely, Ghulam and plaintiffs have no right to inherit property.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record with their able assistance as well as Muhammadan Law.
6. The relationship of the parties with propositus is admitted one. In accordance with the Muhammadan Law, both the parties (plaintiffs and defendants) come in the category of residuary of the propositus and they are the descendants of father of propositus, which is the third category of descendants and the respondents-defendants' predecessor, namely, Ghulam being brother's son of the propositus is at Sr. No. 9, whereas the petitioners-plaintiffs being full brother's sons' sons come at Sr. No. 11 of said table and the principle is nearer in degree excludes the more remote. In this view of the matter, I am clear in my mind that the impugned mutation has been attested in accordance with law and the first Appellate Court has taken the right view in accordance with the Muhammadan Law, which is applicable in our country. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs failed to highlight any misreading, non-reading or jurisdictional defect in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court. This civil revision having no force and the same is dismissed.
Civil revision .