' By this revision the judgment and decree dated 8-5-1985 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class, Mianwali and the judgment dated 1-5-1986 of the learned District Judge, Mianwali are challenged.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are that Mehr Sawai widow of Sultan Ali Shah filed a suit for possession of 1/2 share of 1/4th portion of house No.K /138 through her real brother Ghulam Muhammad Shah as she was insane and incapable of watching her interests. She stated that her deceased husband Sultan Ali Shah and his second wife Mst. Mureed Fatima (since dead) had purchased the disputed house, to the extent of 1/4th share and 3/4th share respectively from a non-Muslim in the year, 1939. Sultan Ali Shah died in 1945 while Mst. Mureed Fatima died in 1946.
According to her respondents Nos.1 to 14 the legal heirs of Mst. Mureed Fatima succeeded not to the extent of the share of Mst. Mureed Fatima in the house but also took possession of the share of Sultan Ali Shah aforementioned. She averred that being a widow of Sultan Ali Shah she was entitled to the ownership/possession of 1/2 share in the share of the house in dispute of her late husband Sultan Ali Shah. According to Mehr Sawai the respondents had sold the entire house in dispute in favour of respondents Nos. 15 and 16 and that the said sale was inoperative to the extent of her share in the said house. Respondents Nos.5, 11 and 12 filed a joint written statement while respondent No.5 (one of the purchasers) filed a separate written statement. The other defendants, however, did not contest the suit. The following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the suit is liable to dismissal in view of preliminary objection No.1? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction if so, what is its correct valuation? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is timebarred? OPD
(5) Whether Mureed Fatima was owner of the suit property and Sultan Ali Shah was Benamidar?
OPD
(6) If issue above is not proved, what is the share of the plaintiff in the suit property? OPP
(7) Whether the partition of the suit property and other property of Sultan Ali Shah deceased had already been partitioned and the parties are in possession of it according to their respective share? OPD
(8) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs, if so, to what extent? OPD.
(9) Relief.
' After recording evidence, the learned trial Court held that Mst. Mehr Sawai respondent being lunatic could file the suit through her next friend. Issue No.2 was not contested by the petitioner.
Under issue No.3 the suit was held to be properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. Under issue No.4 it was held that since the respondents were co-sharers the question of limitation did not arise. Issue No.5 was not contested by the petitioner. Under issue No.6 the petitioner was found entitled to 7/8th share in house while Mst. Mehr Sawai respondent and her heirs were found entitled to remaining 1/8th share, Issue No.7 was not contested by the petitioner.
Issue No.8 was decided against the petitioner and he was not found entitled to any cost. In view of the above finding the suit of Mst. Mehr Sawai respondent was decreed to the extent of 1/8th share against the petitioner.
3. Feeling aggrieved Rab Nawaz petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree which was dismissed by Syed Muhammad Zafar Babar Shah, District Judge, Mianwali on 1-7-1986.
The learned District Judge held that since the market value of the share of the petitioner in the house in dispute was not more than Rs.25,000, issue No.3 about court-fee had been rightly decided by the learned trial Court. As regards the suit being timebarred the learned District Judge held that it was an admitted position that Mst. Mehr Sawai respondent was a widow of Sultan Ali Shah who had 1/4th share in the house in dispute and that the defendants Nos.2 to 14 being the legal representatives of Mst. Mureed Fatima the second wife of Sultan All Shah occupied the entire property as co-sharers. Thus, the question of her physical possession in the absence of the plea of ouster was immaterial. It was further held by the learned District Judge that the sale deed Exh.P.3 dated 15-6-1939 showed that 3/9th share of the property in dispute was purchased by Mst. Mureed Fatima and 1/4th share was purchased by Sultan Ali Shah. Since Sultan Ali Shah deceased had two wives Mst. Mehr Sawai and Mst. Mureed Fatima, therefore, his 1/4th share in the property had to be equally divided between Mst. Mehr Sawai and the heirs of Mst. Mureed Fatima. It was further observed by the learned District Judge that the heirs of Mst. Mureed Fatima had no legal right to alienate the share of Mst. Mehr Sawai in the suit property. The learned District Judge further observed that the decree Exh.D.2 in the suit filed by Rab Nawaz petitioner against Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ashraf and others clearly embodied the condition that it would not affect the rights of Mst. Mehr Sawai in the disputed property, if any.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a misreading of evidence and the Courts below were bound to decide issue No.7 and further that the issue of limitation was also not properly decided. The finding on the question of issue No.3 regarding court- fee is also assailed.
5. It would not be out of place to mention that as evident from the judgment of the learned appellate Court the finding on issue No.7 was not assailed before the said Court by the petitioner.
The learned trial Court stated that the defendants on whose instance that issue was framed did not contest the suit. In this view of the matter the petitioner is not permitted to contest the finding on that issue at this stage. The issues regarding valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and limitation for filing the suit were correctly decided by the Courts below. In the absence of plea of ouster, the possession of one co-sharer of the joint property shall be deemed to be on behalf of the other co-sharers. The valuation of the suit as determined on the basis of the statement of the petitioner and other documentary evidence. Rab Nawaz petitioner and respondent No.16 had purchased 3/4th of the house in dispute from Muhammad Iqbal Shah and Muhammad Ashraf Shah for Rs.12,000 in 1981 and the remaining 1/4th share for Rs.2,000 in the year, 1982. The market value of the suit filed in the year, 1981 was thus, correctly found to be less than Rs.25,000.
' The Courts below had duly considered all the relevant facts and their findings are based on fair appreciation of evidence and substantial justice has been done to the parties. The conclusion of fact was arrived at after giving full opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence. The Courts below had jurisdiction to determine the question before it and they have determined it with full application of mind providing no cause for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine.