' The facts relevant for the disposal of this case, in brief, are that Mst. Sakina Bibi widow of Ghafoor Khan died issueless. Her inheritance was mutated in favour of her two brothers, the petitioners, vide Mutation No,455 dated 13-12-1984. The respondents challenged that mutation before the AC/Collector, on the plea that the deceased was limited owner but she was wrongly treated as full owner by the AC-I/Tehsildar. The Collector vide his order dated 23-12-1985 has held that intricate questions of law and facts were involved in the case, which cannot be solved in summary manner and directed the parties to go to the civil Court for the redressal of their grievance. Being aggrieved of the said order of the Collector, the respondents went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who vide his impugned order dated 22-9-1986 set aside the orders of Collector as well Mutation No,455, declared Mst. Sakina Bibi as limited owner and remitted the case to the AC-I/Tehsildar for fresh decision according to Muslim Shariat Law. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the most important question of law is that the appeal before the Collector was barred by time and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act did not contain any sound reason for condonation of the delay. The learned Additional Commisisoner having found that the appeal before the Collector was not competent and did not state any reasons why the appeal before him was treated as a revision. The Additional Commissioner has further not explained as to how the view taken by the Collector regarding the complicated question of law and fact was erroneous and he has wrongly considered that this case is governed by custom. Under custom whole of the estate of Ghafoor Khan should have gone to his widows as the daughters were not eligible to succeed in the presence of widows, but in this case the estate was divided by agreement between all six heirs of Ghafoor Khan. The status of Mst.
Sakeena Jan is not that of a limited owner or of maintenance holder and that the respondents had agreed to confer upon her the status of absolute owner which she exercised throughout whole of her life. It was prayed that the revision may be accepted.
3. The learned counsel for respondents maintained in rebuttal that Ghafoor Kt ,n had died on 11-5- 1938 leaving considerable landed property. The decision of the revenue officer sanctioning inheritance Mutation No,626 of village Abdur Rehman dated 9-8-1938 and the mutation relating to village Momanpur dividing the estate in equal share between two widows and four daughters was upheld by the Collector vide his order dated 8-10-1938 observing that all the six ladies will hold the property during their life or until remarriage. In the second round of litigation after the promulgation of Muslim Pesonal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962, Mutation No,2693 was entered by the Patwari but was rejected and litigation starting thereupon ended in a compromise before the Member, Board of Revenue in which the order of the Collector dated 8-10-1938 was upheld. The third round of litigation was started with the death of Sakina Jan on 17-11-1984. Her inheritance was given to the present petitioners vide Mutation No,455. However on appeal the Collector rejected this mutation considering that the status of Sakina Jan could not be decided in summary proceedings as it was a complicated question of law and point fact. However, the Additional Commissioner accepted the appeal vide the impugned order. The learned counsel argued that Ghafoor Khan was the last full owner of the property in dispute and Mst. Sakina Jan being limited owner the property was to revert to Ghafoor Khan and her inheritance would be decided in accordance with Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act as amended by Ordinance IX of 1972. The learned counsel relied on PLD 1987 FSC 1 and 1986 SCMR 1539 and prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. It is evident that the inheritance of Ghafoor Khan was decided by agreement between his two widows and four daughters in equal shares. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to explain how the inheritance of Ghafoor Khan could be divided in equal shares except according to Customary Law-because the share of widow and daughter is different in Muslim Law. The order of the Collector dated 8-10-1938 confirms the view that all the six ladies will hold the property till their life or remarriage which clearly shows that these six ladies are not full owners but limited owners. Again it was held by the Sub Judge Ist Class Attock district that the aforesaid six persons were holders of life estate vide his order dated 21-12-1944 (unattested copy placed on record by respondents). Moreover, this fact is further confirmed by compromise before the Board of Revenue dated 5-4-1969. The fact of Sakina Jan etc., being limited owners thus having been established, the rest of the case is simple enough.
All limited estates held by Muslim females were terminated with the promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962 and under section 5 thereof the inheritance of Ghafoor Khan shall devolve upon such persons as would be found entitled to succeed him under the Muslim Personal Law upon his death. This view is supported by the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. The impugned order has therefore been made in accordance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity. The revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to the costs.