1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Dost Muhammad and Haji Muhammad, petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 26-1-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revision No, 350/91, filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 5-6-1991 of the Additional District Judge, Layyah accepting the appeal against the judgment of the trial Court dated 4-6-1985, was accepted and the suit of the plaintiffs decreed to the extent of 3/4th of the property in suit.
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Sardar was owner of the suit land who died issueless in 1926, and since his family was governed by the customary law of inheritance, his property was mutated in the name of Mst. Fatima Bibi vide Mutation No, 155 attested on 7-12-1926 as life estate holder and she was entitled only to enjoy the usufruct of the property till life or remarriage and was not competent to alienate the same in favour of any body else. Ranjha and others, predecessors- in-interest of the respondents, filed a suit bearing No, 509 of 1984 challenging the transfer vide Mutations Nos. 3272 and No, 3273 attested on 31-8-1981 in favour of Dost Muhammad and Haji Muhammad petitioners. The suit was contested, issues framed in the light of the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties and the learned trial Court, on the appraisal thereof vide its judgment and decree dated 4-6-1985, dismissed the suit. An appeal against it was filed by the respondents which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Layyah and he, vide his judgment and decree dated 5-6-1991, accepted the same, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents with costs. The defendants/petitioners filed revision petition against it which was partly accepted and they were held entitled to 1/4th share which was the Shari entitlement of Mst. Fatima Bibi, their transferor, and the decree passed by the appellate Court altered to 3/4th share, through the impugned judgment. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have heard Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate, for the petitioners, and have perused the record of the case.
4. Sardar, the last full owner, admittedly died during the time when custom was generally the rule of inheritance in the area where the suit land is situated. He was, admittedly, issueless and the attestation of his inheritance mutation exclusively in the name of his widow per se suggests that it did not confer full proprietary rights on her but vested her as a life estate holder to enjoy the usufruct of the property till death or remarriage and the ownership of the property vested in the reversionaries, admittedly the plaintiffs/ respondents. On the termination of the limited estate, succession to the property of the last full owner opened and the same was legally to be divided among the Shari heirs of Sardar living at the time of his death. Since Mst. Fatima Bibi, his widow, was also living at the time of his death she too, is entitled to inherit 1/4th share and the learned High Court, following the latest law on the subject, rightly modified the judgment of the trial Court as well the appellate Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents to the extent of 1/4th share of Mst. Fatima widow of Sardar deceased.
5. ' Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.