1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that there were three brothers namely Ghulam Rasul petitioner, Ghulam Qadir and Ghulam Haider. Ghulam Qadir died in 1977 and his inheritance was sanctioned in the names of Ghulam Haider and Ghulam Rasul petitioner in equal shares. Sometime later also in 1977 died Ghulam Haider leaving behind Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent his widow. Thus two mutations were entered, one pertaining to inheritance of Ghulam Qadir i.e, Mutation No, 209 and other pertaining to the inheritance of Ghulam Haider i. e. Mutation No, 210. Both were sanctioned on 28 January, 1978. Mutation No, 210 pertaining to the estate of Ghulam Haider, out of which 3/4th share was given to the petitioner and 1/4th share was given to Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent, his widow, as he had died issueless. This mutation i.e, No,210 was challenged by the present petitioner before the Civil Judge on the ground that Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent was not the wife of Ghulam Haider deceased as he had never married. The suit was decreed but on appeal of Mst.
3. Muhammad Bibi respondent the judgment of the trial Court was reversed. Thereafter the revision petition filed by the present petitioner against the appellate Court's judgment was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petition.
4. ' It is contended by learned counsel that according to the evidence on record Ghulam Haider deceased was a Sainlog and had never married. But this argument is not supported by the evidence on record. The Lambardar and the other owners of the estate had deposed that the respondent had lived with the deceased Ghulam Haider as his wife for more than 25 years. It was on such evidence supported by documentary evidence on the basis of which the appellate Court had arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was the wife of. Ghulam Haider deceased and therefore entitled to 1/4th share in his estate. This finding of fact has been upheld by the High Court.
5. Since the question of fact has been decided against the petitioner no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.