' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 1-6-1998 of the Lahore High Court through which Civil Revision No,2475 of 1995 filed by the petitioner against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below passed in partition suit has been dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to inheritance of Mst. Ghulam Zainab who was the owner of the property in dispute. Previously a suit was filed for partition of this land which was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. Second suit was filed for the same purpose from which this petition has arisen.
The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties through judgment dated 19-4-1989 passed preliminary decree determining the shares of the parties in the property in dispute as heirs of Mst. Ghulam Zainab. It was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore which was dismissed through judgment dated 2-11-1996. The petitioner filed Civil Revision No,2475 of 1995 before the Lahore High Court which has been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber through the impugned judgment dated 1-6- 1998.
3. It may be mentioned here that the property in dispute was evacuee and the same was transferred to Mst. Ghulam Zainab under the settlement laws. After the issuance of P.T.O. But before the issuance of P.T.D., she died on 14-8-1962 the correctness of which date is being disputed by the petitioner according to whom she died in 1960 much before the issuance of P.T.D., in 1965.
According to learned counsel, names of the heirs of Mst. Ghulam Zainab were entered in the P.T.D,.
Which included Tahira Sultana daughter of her predeceased son Muhammad Aslam and Mst.
Ghulam Fatima, step-daughter of Mst. Ghulam Zainab.
4. In the previous suit filed in respect of partition of this property in the pleadings and other documents copies of which were produced in evidence of this suit duly taken note of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, no dispute was raised as to the rights of Mst. Tahira Sultana and Mst. Ghulam Fatima as also regarding other matters.
5. All the Courts below have recorded findings of facts that Mst. Ghulam Zainab died on 14-8-1962 and not on 14-8-1960 which fact was admitted in the previous suit in the pleadings but in this suit an attempt was made to prove that she died on 14-8-1960. The evidence to this effect was consisting of entries in Exhs.D3 and D7. This evidence was rightly not given any credence in the previous suit in the pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that since the P.T.D. Was issued in 1965, therefore, it contained the names of the parties in this petition as heirs of Mst, Ghulam Zgnab. When questioned he frankly admitted that entries as to heirs of Mst. Ghulam Zainab made in the P.T.D., were not challenged under the settlement laws.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that neither Muhammad Aslam nor Waliullah, predeceased son of Mst. Ghulam Zainab nor her step-daughter Mst. Ghulam Fatima could inherit any share in the property according to Muhammadan Law and the provisions of the Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 which provided that the share which predeceased son or daughter of a deceased Muslim would have inherited would devolve on his or her heirs was not a valid law. We are afraid, the contention cannot be raised in these proceedings for admittedly the Federal Shariat Court which is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to examine as to whether a provision of law or a law was repugnant to Injunction of Islam, and Sunnah has not made any such declaration.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that Tahira Sultana daughter of Muhammad Aslam could not inherit full share of Muhammad Aslam, her father who was predeceased son of Mst. Ghulam Zainab, therefore, her share was not correctly determined. When asked as to whether the petitioner raised any objection as to correctness of determination of her share before the Courts below, could not point out any such objection. The petitioner did not challenge the entry in the P.T.D., we are not inclined to allow him to raise this argument before this Court for no such ground has been expressly and specifically raised even in this petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mst. Ghulam Fatima step-daughter of Mst.
Ghulam Zainab has been given share on the basis of a will and the will has not been proved. We are also not impressed by this argument as all the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that she was entitled to get share in the property of Mst. Ghulam Zainab and all these findings of facts have not been shown to have suffered from any misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.