' The dispute relates to inheritance of Tufaii Muhammad son of Fazal Muhammad who died on 20th August 1972. On an application made by Mst. Hamida Begum, the petitioner, she was granted a succession certificate on 21st of June, 1973 by the Court of Mr. Badar-ur-Zaman Chatha, Civil Judge, Lahore. Mst. Nazir Begum and three others the respondents herein on 7th February, 1974 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the succession certificate was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation inasmuch as Mst. Hamida Begum was not a widow of the deceased and was not entitled to any inheritance but on the other hand petitioner No,1 Mst. Nazir Begum was his only widow and respondents Nos.2 to 4 his daughters and son. Later on Altaf Hussain, respondent No, 5 was impleaded as a party to the suit being a son of Tufail Muhammad deceased from Mst. Hamida Begum petitioner. This suit was contested by petitioner but was decreed by the Court of Mr. Razi Abbas Bokhari, Civil Judge on 8th of January, 1978.
2. Aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal which was decided by Mr. Ali Nawaz Chauhan, Addl.
District Judge on 15-9-1980 on the statement made by the parties whereby they had agreed to the remand of the suit to the trial Court.
' In pursuance to the order of remand the learned trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and on 15-1-1986 decreed the suit in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 4 holding that Mst. Hamida Begum petitioner had been divorced by Tufail Muhammad during his life time and she as such was not entitled to any inheritance of his estate. The petitioner Mst. Hamida Begum as also Altaf Hussain respondent No,5 filed a joint appeal before the Additional District Judge where the claim of Altaf Hussain was conceded by respondents Nos.1 to 4. The learned Additional District Judge however, affirmed the findings of the trial Court, as regards Mst. Hamida Begum that she had been divorced by Tufail Muhammad during his lifetime. The decree of the trial Court was thereore, modified to the extent of Altaf Hussain respondent No,5 but the claim of the appellant was however rejected. She has now filed this petition under section 115, C.P.C.
3. Mr. Abdul Majeed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of remand of the suit by Mr. Ali Nawaz Chauhan, Additional District Judge the question as regards the status of Mst. Hamida Begum petitioner stood finally decided and therefore, it was not open to the trial Court in post remand proceedings to have given a finding that she was not a widow of the deceased.
This argument of the learned counsel is without any merits. From a A bare perusal of the statement made by the parties on 15th of September. 1980 on the basis of which remand order was passed it is evident that the question as to who were the heirs of the deceased was specifically left open and remanded to the trial Court. It is, therefore, idle on the part of the petitioner to contend that the status of Mst. Hamida Begum was no longer in issue and could not have been decided by the trial Court.
4. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the findings of the Courts below that Mst. Hamida Begum had been divorced by Tufail Muhammad during his lifetime are not well founded. The question as to whether Mst. Hamida Begum was divorced by Tufail Muhammad is one of fact. Both the Courts below after appraising the evidence of the parties have recorded the concurrent finding, that Tufail Muhammad had divorced Mst. Hamida Begum in the year 1951-52. It is not possible to reappraise the evidence in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
5. Even otherwise the findings of the Courts below in this respect are well founded. Apart from oral evidence the respondents Nos.1 to 4 had produced in evidence an agreement Ex.P.1 containing an acknowledgement of Mst. Hamida Begum that she has been divorced by her husband Muhammad Tufail. The C document bears the date 16th of April, 1951 and being more than 30 years old carries the presumption of correctness under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. Significantly enough, after the document had been produced in evidence the petitioner did not appear as a witness nor did she deny her signatures on the said document. The two Courts below had relied upon the statements of PW1 Mst. Hussain Bibi the mother of Tufail Muhammad deceased and PW.2 Muhammad Iqbal, his brother-in-law. The concurrent findings which are based on this evidence cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious and do not call for any interference by this Court.
' As a result of the above, this petition has no force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.