JUDGMENT .
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- The dispute relates to inheritance of Fateh Din s/o Ahmad, who hied in the year I960. He htul two daughters namely Mst. Sardar Bibi and Mst. Rehmat Bibi. Mst. Rehmat Bibi died during the life lime of Fateh Din. A mutation was sanctioned in favour of Mst. Sardar Bibi to the extent of 1/2 share in the land left by Fateh Din as his daughter and the remaining 1/2 was mutated.In 1he name of heirs of Mst. Rehmat Bibi that is the present appellants.
2. This mutation was disputed by Muhammad Alam etc. Respondents in the suit from which this appeal has arisen. Their case was that the heirs of Rehmat Bibi a pre-deceased daughter of Fateh Din under the Islamic Law of inheritance could not inherit his property whereas the remaining 1/2 share had devolved on them as collaterals/rcsiduarics of Fateh Din. The pidegrec-table was given in the plaint by the respondents the correctness of which was not disputed. The only dispute raised was with regard to the dale of death of Rehmat Bibi Which according to the appellants took place alter the death of Fateh Din. Sardar s/o Muhammad Din was examined by the respondents who produced the original register maintained by Village Chaukidetr, according to entry No. 13 of which Rehmat Bibi died on 16-9-1942. He was not cross-examined to question the genuineness or otherwise as regards improper maintenance of the said register or the correctness of entries made therein. According to this entry Taj Din Chattkiilar made the relevant entry on the information given by Ch. Muhammad Hussain. Ch. Muhammad Hussain was examined as PW-4 who slated that Rehmat Bib died 26/27 years before and entry iibout her death was made in the said register maintained by Chaukidar at Sr. No. 13 on 16-9-1 '>42 at his instance whose name had also been entered in the said register as informant. He stated that Taj Din Chaukidar in whose custody the said register was and who made the said entry on his information had died. This witness when made statement was Chairman of the Union Council. He also staled that the register regarding entries of deaths of the villagers was with Sardar who as earlier observed produced the same. As against this the appellant produced only oral evidence to establish that Rehmat Bibi died after the death of Fateh Din.
3. DW-1 examined by the appellants only staled that Rehmat Bibi died five or six months after the death of Fateh Din. This witness was not related to the parties. DW-2 stated that Mst. Rehmat Bibi died five or six months after the death of Fateh Din who also admitted that he was not related to the parlies. He also did not know whether any entry was made in the register about the death of Rehmat Bibi maintained by Chaukidar. DW-3 who is the husband of Rehmat Bibi and himself a party claimed that Mst. Rehmat Bibi died six or seven months after the death of Fateh Din but no dale was mentioned when her death tyok place. DW-3 staled that Nabi Bakhsh filed appeal before the higher forum on the revenue side against the initiation and at that lime Rehmat Bib was alive in order to make out It ease that she died after the death of Fateh Din. It was rightly observed by tjje trial Court that if she. Was alive, there was no reason as to why the present appellants wcr mad parly in the said appeal instead of Rehmat Bibi. Ex. P/5 is the copy of grounds of appeal filed before the Revenue Higher Authority which shows that Rehmat Bibi was not party to this appeal. She could not be made party because the mutation was sanctioned in favour of appellants and not Rehmat Bibi. The said appeal must have been filed after the mutation had been sanctioned.
4. The concurrent findings of fact that Mst. Rehmat Bibi died much earlier to the death of Fateh Din do not suffer from any illegality such as misreading, non-reading or misconstruction of any material piece of evidence.
5. Learned counsel for appellants when confronted with this difficulty, argued that in view of the rule laid down in judgment reported as Sardar v. Mst. Nemat Bi and others (1992 Supreme Court Monthly Review page 82) that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1%I has to be given retrospective effect, therefore, after coming to force of the said Ordinance in the year 1961 i.e., after the death of Fateh Din the children of pre-deceased son and daughter are entitled to inherit the share which the said pre-deceased daughter orison would have inherited. 1 am afraid the argument is wholly misconceived, fn this reported judgment the facts were not identical. According to facts of this reported caseHam Dim died in the year 1947 whereas his daughter Fatima Bibi had died earlier in 1942, On the death of Ham Din his land was taken over by his widow as life estate which terminated by virtue of provisions of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1902.
Interpreting the provisions of this later Act it was held that tijj; provisions of Family Laws Ordinance 1961 were to be read as part of this Act and according to the interpolation the inheritance'of Ham Din wa.i taken to have opened on 1he termination of life in'and not on the death of 11am Din. In the present case the land of Fateh Din was not given to his widow as life estate, therefore, provisions of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Sharial) Application Act, 1962 were not applicable as such the question of applicability of Family Laws Ordinance. 1961 does not arise.
6. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are perfectly in accordance with law which do not suffer from any illegality. The appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.