1. ' This IInd Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Suit No, 11/68 filed by the appellant. The land comprising of survey Nos. 18, 19, 27, 313, 34/1 to 4 and 315 situated in Deh Kalri Taluka Kala in Deb Nizamani was owned by appellant's father namely Wali Muhammad who died 38 years before the filing of the suit in 1968. Wali Muhammad had married two wives Mst. Bhapi and Mst. Bachai. He had two sons namely, the appellant and one Sher Muhammad, born to Mst. Bhapi.
2. Sher Muhammad died long ago. It is alleged in the plaint that Mst. Bachai had no issue as Wali Muhammad had married her in old age and she had eloped away with one Gbulam Murtaza and was later divorced. As Sher Muhammad had died the plaintiff's name was mutated in the property inherited from his father Wali Muhammad. In the year 1963-64 the respondent approached the Head Munshi of Taluka Hala and, got her name mutated in the records jointly with the appellant representing herself as the daughter of Wali Muhammad. It is alleged that this mutation was made without any notice to the appellant and the Khata was changed after a lapse of 35 years. The appellant challenged the order of Head Munshi before the Deputy Collector Hala, who recorded the evidence and upheld the order of the Head Munshi. This order of the Deputy Collector was set aside in Revision by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad. The appellant therefore, approached the Board of Revenue which decided the matter in favour of the respondent. The appellant maintaining that the respondent is not a legitimate daughter of Wali Muhammad filed a suit for declaration with the following main prayers :- "(a) Declaration that the defendant is not legitimate daughter of Wali Muhammad and is not entitled to any share in the property of Wali Muhammad and subsequently in the property of Sher Muhammad deceased brother of the plaintiff also.
(b) Permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her from claiming the daughter of Wali Muhammad and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff's property which he has inherited from his father and brother Sher Muhammad."
3. ' The learned trial Court dismissed the suit and held that the respondent was the legitimate daughter of Wali Muhammad and thus she was entitled to a share in the property. An appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Therefore, on a question of fact that the respondent is the daughter of Wali Muhammad there is a concurrent finding of the two Courts below.
4. ' Mr. Nasiruddin the learned counsel for the appellant faced with this situation fairly conceded that this issue cannot be challenged in second appeal. He, however, contended that as there was a legal defect in the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities he is entitled to challenge it. He relied on PLD 1964 Kar. 61 where it was held that "when a question of law is raised for the first time in a Court of last resort upon the construction of a document or upon facts either admitted or proved beyond controversy, it is not only competent, but expedient, in the interest of justice, to entertain the plea."
5. ' There can be no cavil with the observation made in it and I respectfully agree. However the question arises what is that question of law which is being raised on the admitted facts and law.
6. The only contention is that as no notice was issued to the appellant before mutating the name of the respondent in the revenue records and section 135-C of the Land Revenue Code has not been complied with, the entire proceeding stand vitiated. The learned counsel has referred to Exh. 36, the order passed by the Board of Revenue from which it is clear that the appellant's name was in the record upto 1964 when the respondent's name was mutated. There is no reference to the fact that any notice was issued to the appellant. This fact does not seem to have been alleged by the appellant before the Revenue authorities. In fact from the plaint it is clear that the order of the Board of Revenue has not been challenged. Even the prayed is only restricted to a decoration that the respondent is not the legitimate daughter and permanent injunction has been sought restraining the respondent from disturbing the appellant's possession. If the appellant had ever intended to challenge the legality of the order of the Board of Revenue, firstly he would have so pleaded and sought such relief and secondly the Revenue Authorities would have been made party in the suit. None of these steps have been taken, and therefore, it is clear that the order of the Board of Revenue has not been challenged in the suit. Furthermore the question whether the order is vitiated for want of compliance with the provision of section 135 one has to investigate whether such a notice was issued or not. This is a question of fact which' requires fresh evidence and is not dependent upon the construction of document or on proved facts. In the circumstances the appellant cannot be allowed to raise it at this stage. No other point has been pressed by the appellant. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.