1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute relates to part of the estate of Maulu deceased, Maliar by case, resident of village Mong, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat. He died in the year 1942. On his death the mutation was effected in the name of Mst. Mirzan, widow of his pre-deceased son Khushi for life in accordance with the Customary Law. She died on the 24th November 1954, and the mutation for the estate of Maulu deceased was effected in favour of Mst. Bibi respondent as the slaughter of his pre-deceased son Khushi. It was also effected in favour of Muhammad father of the petitioners as the collaterals of the deceased on the 19th March 1955. The petitioners Nos. I and 2 filed suit against Mst. Bibi respondent for possession of 173 kanals 5 marlas of land to the extent of 1/2 share of total of the land left by deceased Maulu. The allegation in the suit was that Mst. Bibi was not the daughter of Khushi deceased and was not entitled to succeed to any share in the estate. It was alleged that Khushi had died without any issue. Respondent denied this fact. She contended that she was the daughter of Khushi from Mst. Mirzan and was entitled to succeed to the estate. On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed and on the question which is under consideration, the following issue was framed :- "Whether the defendant is daughter of Khushi deceased from Mst. Mirzan."
2. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahaud--din on the 30th June 1 956. He held that respondent was the daughter of Khushi deceased from Mst. Mirzan. The matter was taken in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Gujrat. He reversed the finding on the above question and held that Mst. Bibi respondent was not the daughter of Khushi deceased. Respondent challenged this judgment in R. S. A. No. 237 of 1956, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, on the 18th January 1965. Against this order, a Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1965, was filed and the Letters Patent Bench of the Lahore High Court, by judgment dated the 3rd June 1971, has accepted the appeal and restored the decree passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
3. The sole question for consideration in this petition is whether Mst. Bibi is the daughter of Khushi deceased.
4. Mr. D. M. Awan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that there being a concurrent finding of fact by the Additional District Judge and the High Court, the Letters Patent Bench was not competent to disturb this finding. In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel has no force.
5. After going through the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, it appears that he was of the opinion that both the parties have produced oral evidence which could not be relied upon in such a hatter. He did not consider the evidence in detail. He also discarded the documentary evidence and observed :--- "We cannot be certain when the present defendant was born and whether her birth was reported to the authorities."
6. It is thus quite apparent that the learned Additional District Judge did not appreciate the evidence led by the parties and decided the question in dispute on fanciful grounds. The learned Single Judge also did not appreciate the evidence himself and relied on the finding of the learned Additional District Judge. In these circumstances, the Letters Patent Bench was perfectly justified in going through the evidence to find out whether Mst. Bibi was the daughter of Khushi deceased.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied that P. W. 1 Muhammad, one of the plaintiffs, admitted in his cross---examination that after about 8/9 months of the death of Khuehi, a daughter was born to him from Mst. Mirzan. He further stated that she died soon after about 2/3 months. He further stated that Mst. Mirzan had an aunt by the name of Bagey residing in Jhelum.
8. She brought the respondent from there as she was childless. P. W. 2 Rehma has also admitted that after about 8/9 months of the death of Khushi a daughter was post--humously born to him. But 11e also stated that she died soon afterwards after about 3/4 months. P. W. 3 Allah Ditta also made a similar statement. The respondent has produced D. W. 5 Sahib Din aged 80 years. He has deposed that the respondent was the daughter of Khushi son of Maulu. According to him, after about 8/9 months of the death of Khusbi, the respondent was born and was living with her grand-father in his house. She also produced Khushi Muhammad aged 75 years, who made a similar statement.
9. Respondent, as her own witness, stated that she was the daughter of Khushi from Mst. Mirzan. The docu--mentary evidence produced by the parties shows that Khusbi son of Maulu had died on the 3rd April 1907. Exh. P. 3 and D. 4 are the certified copies from the birth register to show that on the 4th December 1908, a daughter was born to Khushi Malian Muslim by case in the village Mong.
10. The High Court has considered the above mentioned evidence and has come to the conclusion that the trial Court's finding that Mst. Bibi respondent was the daughter of Khushi deceased way correct. The High Court has discussed the evidence at length and has considered it from every point of view and it cannot be said that the decision on the question under consideration is not based on evidence.
11. The point raised by the learned counsel-for the petitioners is about the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. This is not the function of this Court. We do not consider it as fit case for interference.
12. The petition is dismissed.