SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: --These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgments of the Lahore High Court whereby the constitution petitions and the review petitions of the petitioners were dismissed.
2. The dispute in this petition relates to 101 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land situate in village Mitha Astar of tehsil Mailsi. This land belonged to Mehr Khan, respondent No.3 who is now dead and is represented by his legal heirs. He gifted it to his wife Mst. Taj Bibi. The gift was evidenced by a mutation attested on 7-6-1947. The donee died in 1947. On her death a mutation of inheritance was attested on 25-2-74. By this mutation half of the land in dispute was given to Mehr Khan and the other half was given to her brother Nawaz Khan. In 1978, Nawaz Khan also died. Consequently, another mutation was attested whereby the share earlier given to Nawaz Khan was allocated to his heirs who are the petitioners before us.
3. Mehr Khan challenged, the correctness of the two mutations attested on the death of Mst. Taj Bibi and Nawaz Khan. His case was that the gift which he had made in favour of Mst. Taj Bibi was only for the purpose of maintenance and that on her death the land in dispute reverted to him. The Collector dismissed his appeal but in revision, the Additional Commissioner upheld this contention and directed that the mutations be revised so as to show him to be the owner of the entire property in dispute. The petitioners filed a second revision before the Board of Revenue but it was dismissed. They then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the orders of the Revenue authorities. Their Constitution petition was dismissed. They then tiled a review application but that too remained unsuccessful. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
4. The Constitution petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court was entirely misconceived. The questions whether the gift made by Mehr Khan in favour of Mst. Taj Bibi was for maintenance only or whether it was an absolute one, were for a Civil Court to decide. The petitioners had an adequate remedy available to them and the filing of the Constitution petitions to get the decision of the Revenue authorities in the matter of mutations was uncalled for. We would therefore dismiss these petitions.