' This is a revision petition against the order dated 14-7-1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner Hyderabad rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner and maintaining the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner-1. Hyderabad whereby the (A.D.C-1) upheld the order of Settlement Mukhtiarkar Matli, mutating Foti Khatabadal of deceased Jhando, allowing 12-paisa share to respondent Mst. Maryam widow of deceased and remaining 88 paisas share to the petitioner son of the deceased.
2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that deceased Jhando, father of the petitioner, had land viz. S. Nos. 762, 673, 796 and others in Dell Soorhadi, Taluka Math, on his Khata at the time of his death. He also left the following as legal heirs :-
1. Loung son of Jhando.
2. Mst. Maryam widow of Jhando.
3. The Settlement Mukhtiarkar Math, after holding Jalsae-Am decided the inheritance whereby Mst.
Maryam, the wife of the deceased received 0-12 paisa share in the property and the petitioner got the rest 88 paisas as his share. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order of the Settlement Mukhtiarkar filed appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner-I Hyderabad which was rejected.
Again he filed revision before Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad which was also rejected. Hence this revision.
4. Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Shah counsel for the petitioner contended that Mst. Maryam was not the wedded-wife of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, she was not entitled to the share. The Jalsa- e-Am was not held properly as required by law. The deceased Jhando, father of the petitioner had one wife who died before her husband. The petitioner is only legal heir and entitled to the entire property. He further contended that the petitioner was real son of the deceased and he was not supposed to go to civil Court. According to law one who had cause of action should go to civil Court. Since the lady was not the wedded-wife, she should approach the Civil Court and establish her right there.
5. Mr. Habibullah counsel for the respondent on the other hand, contended that there were two concurrent findings of lower Courts which could not be set aside on the revisional side on facts. He further contended that Jalsa-e-Am was held and consensus was in her favour and she was declared as wedded-wife. Hence there is no cause of action for her to go to Civil Court.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. The main point in this case is whether the revenue Courts are competent to determine whether a lady was a wedded-wife or not. This the revenue Courts are not supposed to go into and determine. This is purely a Civil matter and can be agitated there. The precaution that the Revenue Officer took in inquiry in Jalsa-e-Am, was more than enough. Since the petitioners challenges that she was not a wedded-wife of the deceased, it is for him to go to Civil Court. It will be unjust and unfair to the lady if her claim to share is rejected on that ground and she is made to go to Civil Court. I, therefore, agree with the findings of the lower Courts and reject the revision petition.