' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.--This writ petition filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 by Mst. Gulab Begum and Ghulam Qadar petitioners challenged the judgment, dated 4-4-1982 a the learned Additional Secretary Home, respondent No,1 herein, being without jurisdiction, unlawful and of no legal effect.
2. The admitted facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the suit land was originally owned by one Amir Gul who died in 1921 leaving behind two sons Hassan Gul and Ahmad Gul and two daughters Hassan Begum- and Gulab Begum. Mst. Hassan Begum was living with Hussan Gul and Mst. Gulab Begum petitioner No,1 herein was living with Ahmad Gul. After the death of the said Amir Gul, the property left by him was divided in two equal shares. In 1968 Mst. Gulab Begum petitioner No,1, filed a suit against the aforesaid Ahmad Gul claiming her share in the property left by her father. This suit was taken cognizance of by Mizan-e-Shariat which gave a verdict in her favour on 4-2-1976. The said verdict was approved by the Judicial Council on 20-12-1976. Subsequently the Assistant Commissioner made a report to the Deputy Commissioner on 1-8-1977 and the latter by order, dated 10-10-1977 sent back the case to Mizan-e-Shariat for fresh decision as under Rivaj there was no share of females. Meantime Ahmed Gail died somewhere after 1974 leaving behind three daughters only and the Deputy Commissioner ordered that instead of dividing the property of Amir Gul the Mizan-e-Shariat may consider the question of distribution of property of Ahmad Gul. Shariat Law was applied to the State of Chitral in 1954. When the matter came back before the Mizan-e-Shariat, the three daughters of Ahmad Gul claimed that their father had gifted the entire property in their favour in 1949 and that nothing was left to be inherited by the petitioners herein.
The matter was again heard by the Mizan-e-Shariat which by Shari order, dated 18-1-1978 held that the gift of the property by Ahmad Gul jointly to his daughters was invalid under Shariat and directed the distribution of the property to Shari heirs of Ahmad Gul. This order was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner on 10-8-1978. The three daughters, respondents Nos.4 to 6 herein, challenged, the said order of the Deputy Commissioner before the learned Additional Commissioner in appeal but the appeal was dismissed on 17-6-1979. Still feeling aggrieved the said respondents filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Secretary Home which was accepted and the gift was held to be valid in favour of the revision petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised two points before us, firstly, that the matter in dispute was being dealt with under the Rivaj and the learned Additional Secretary Home was not vested with jurisdiction to hear any revision petition; and secondly, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Secretary Home was against the provisions of Islamic Law.
4. In so far as the first point is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioners withdrew his first objection when his attention was drawn to a notification of the Government of N.-W.F.P. Home and Tribal Affairs Deparmtent, dated 12-12-1978 whereby Mr. M.R. Kayani, the then learned incumbent of the post of Additional Secretary Home, was invested with the jurisdiction to hear revision petitions against cases adjudicated upon under Rivaj. This notification was made under the prevalent Rules of Business of the Government of N.-W.F.P. And we find nothing to hold that the learned Additional Secretary Home was not possessed of revisional jurisdiction.
5. In so far as the second point is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to section 161 of the Principles of Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mullah, 15th Edition of 1967, according to which gift of property which is capable cf division to two or more persons without dividing it is invalid. In order to find out what was the actual purport of the gift we consulted the original record and at page 166 thereof we found a copy of the gift deed. We have very minutely perused the said gift deed. It was executed by Ahmad Gul on 9-3-1949. It is in Persian language. Its contents would clearly reveal that he had gifted a particular and separate portion of area of his landed property to each of his daughters. It is not a gif of the property jointly to his daughters but each of them has been given a specified separate area. It would clearly establish that Ahma Gul had not gifted his property jointly to his three daughters but each of them was given a particular and separate area. As such it was not a joint gift of property to the daughters. The learned Additional Secretary Home has written a very detailed judgment and has relied upon the ease of Aurangzeb and others v. Daud Khan and others (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Peshawar 85) in support thereof. In the circumstances we cannot say that his conclusion was wrong according to Sharia Law. On the contrary the Mizan-e-Shariat. And the Deputy Commissioner and _ the learned Additional Commissioner failed to B appreciate the proper legal position of the case under Sharia. We do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.