1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19th June, 1984 whereby civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that one Hidayat was the original tenant of State land. On his death succession of the tenancy devolved on his two sons namely Fazal predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 17 and Bakkho. Bakkho died in 1932 and his tenancy devolved in equal shares upon his widows Msts Dani and Mst. Sattan as he had died issueless. Mst. Dani remarried and thus her share of the tenancy stood transferred to and was mutated in the name of Mst. Sattan in 1939. Mst.
3. Sattan after having paid government dues in respect of the said land acquired proprietary rights.
4. Thereafter in 1969 a part of the disputed land she sold to petitioners Nos.1 to 3 and the remaining part was sold to petitioners Nos.4 and 5. Heirs of Fazal deceased instituted suit claiming 3/4th share of the land held by Mst. Sattan and transferred to the petitioners. Mst. Sattan died during the pendency of the suit and respondents Nos. 18 to 26 are her legal representatives. The case of the heirs of Fazal was that she was a limited owner and that after the enforcement of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962 she could only alienate her own share to the extent of 1/4th and that they became owners of the remaining 3/4th share of the said land as she was incompetent to alienate it. The petitioners' case on the other hand was that she was full owner and that she was empowered to sell it to them. They also claimed that the land had been sold for valid necessity and that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. The trial Court decided the case in their favour and non-suited the plaintiffs but on appeal the Additional District Judge reversed the decision holding that Mst. Sattan was a limited owner following the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Mst. Bagan v. Mst. Bai 1983 SCMR 80. Subsequently as stated above the revision of the petitioners was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners before us attempted to argue that the case of the petitioners was governed by section 30-A of the Colony Act and not under section 19-A, and that since she was full owner of the disputed land she was entitled to alienate it in favour of the petitioners. It was also argued that by virtue of the provisions of section 2-A of Act V of 1962 by the amending Act XIII of 1983 the plaintiffs' suit had stood abated. These arguments had also been raised before the learned Judge of the High Court who had attended to them. But in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Mst. Bagan v. Mst. Bai 1983 SCMR 80 which had been followed by the appellate Court as well as the revisional Court, no interference in our opinion is called for. The petition is therefore dismissed.