1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB Au, J.-This appeal by special leave of the Court volves interpretation of section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal aw (Shariat) Application Act V of 1962 which provides as under:- "3. Termination of life estate under Customary law.-The limited estates in respect of immovable property held by a Muslim female under the customary law, are hereby terminated."
2. ' One Shamat of village Yaqubi, Tehsil Swabi, District Mardan, who ned the suit land died in 1927 leaving him surviving a son, Munjawar resndent No, 1, a widow Mst. Bibi Khanam, appellant No, 3 and three daughrs, Mst. Zarmina and Most. Qismata, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and st. Shahzadgai, respondent No,
2. The family of Shamat was in the matters succession governed by customary law.
3. In accordance with the rule then evailing in the N.-W. F. Province 1/2 of the estate of Shamat was mutated the name of Munjawar and the other in the name of Mst. Bibi Khanam.
4. ' With the enforcement of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) pplication Act (V of 1962) the limited estate of Mst. Bibi Khanam came an end. A dispute, thereupon, arose between the aforementioned is of Shamat as to whether Munjawar, who had already succeeded to more than his Quranic share in the estate of his father was also entitled a share in the land held by Mst. Bibi Khanam as a limited owner. The ourts below held that succession under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) pplication Act V of 1962 was confined to the limited estate held by Mst. Bibi Khanam and out of it she, as a widow, was entitled to 5/40 shar, Munjawar, as a son 14/40 share and Mst.
5. Zarmina, Qismata and Shahzadg to 21/40 share.
6. ' It was urged on behalf of the appellants that Munjawar having ahead succeeded to more than his due share in the estate of Shamat under Musli Law, was not entitled to succeed to a further share out of the limited estat held by Mst. Bibi Khanam.
7. ' Since leave to appeal was given in this case, the identical questions o of law arose for consideration by the Court in Aslam and another v Mst. Kamalzal and others (1). In the judgment delivered on 18th Apri 1974, the Court has held. : "It seems to us that the contention of the learned counsel is correc because it does not appear that it could have been the intention of 6 makers of the Statute to reopen the inheritance, even in cases wher the heirs had taken an absolute vested estate under custom. Only th, limited estates taken under custom, which were, in any event, t terminate on the death or remarriage of the female heir, were intende to be distributed according to Muslim Personal Law. The languag of section 4 leaves no room for doubt that the intention was t provide for the distribution of such properties only which wer notionally still the properties of the last male owner and would have otherwise gone to his reversioners on the termination of the lif estate. We cannot, therefore, agree with the High Court that th share of Mst. Kamalzai had to be calculated in the entire estate left by Karam Khan but only in the estate which was taken by Mst. Roshanai as a limited owner. The succession opened only in respect of this limited estate and not the entire estate. The learned Additional District Judge of Mardan was, therefore, right in the view that he took, namely, that Mst. Kamalzai was only entitled t 12/40 share in the 1/3rd of the estate of= Karam Khan which was taken as a limited owner by Mst.
8. Roshanai."
9. ' Mr. A. M. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the appellants reiterated the plea that Munjawar was not entitled to any share in the land held by Mst. Bibi Khanam as a limited owner. In support of the plea he cited some decided cases including Sardar Abdul Rahman Khan v. Sardar Muhammad Ashra Khan and others (2) which had no bearing on the interpretation of section 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act V of 1962 nor was he in a position to refute the reasons on which the aforementioned decision of the Court is based. Agreeing resp ctfully with the interpretation of section 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shriat) Application Act V of 1962 by the Court in Aslam and another v. Mst. Kamalzai and others, there is no merit in the plea that Munjawar, having already succeeded to more than his share in the estate of' his father Shamat, was not entitled to any further share in the 112 share of the estate held by Mst. Bibi Khanam, as a limited owner.
10. ' The appeal is accordingly dismissed of the parties, we leave them to bear they out in view of the close relationship own costs throughout.