' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 19-1-85 of the Lahore High Court whereby the revision petition of the petitioners from the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land, measuring upward of 300 kanals, situate in villages Thatha Qutha and Bairi Kalan of tehsil Gujranwala. It was owned by Khushi Muhammad. He died in 1924 before reaching the marriagable age. On his death, the land left by him was mutated in the name of this mother, Mst.Hussain Bibi, under the custom as a limited owner. On the enactment of the Shariat Application Act 1962, her limited interest came to an end.
Consequently, on 23-7-64 a new mutation was attested. By this mutation Murad, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, was allowed 5/6 share as the first cousin on the paternal side of Khushi Muhammad and the remaining one share was given to Mst. Hussain Bibi. She died on 1-11-64. There was prolonged litigation before the revenue authorities between Murad and Allah Ditta, respondent, who claimed to be the sole heir as well as donee of Mst.Hussain Bibi over share she was entitled to receive. Ultimately, Allah Ditta brought a suit in a Civil Court for possession of half share in the land in dispute. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and its judgment was maintained by the Additional District Judge and the High Court.
3. The material questions for consideration before the Courts were whether Khushi Muhammad had a sister by the name of Mst.Rani and whether she had survived him. So far as the first question is concerned, it is no longer disputed that Mst.Rani was his sister. As regards the second question, it may be mentioned that both the brother and sister had died during a plague epidemic within an interval of a few days. The case of Murad was that Mst.Rani had predeceased Khushi Muhammad.
On the other hand, Allah Ditta alleged that her death occurred subsequently. Both parties led oral as well as documentary evidence at the trial. The trial Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge held that Mst.Rani died after her brother. The High Court declined to interfere with this concurrent finding.
4. In support of this petition, it is contended that the subordinate Courts misread the documentary evidence in arriving at a conclusion with regard to the death of Mst. Rani. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record we are not persuaded that the findings of the subordinate Courts suffer from any infirmity. Leave is refused.