' This appeal arises out of a dispute regarding inheritance of estate of Chajju. Parties to the appeal are progeny of said Chajju. Chajju had two sons namely Phatu and Gainda. Phatu predeceased his father Chajju leaving behind widow (Bibi) and one daughter Jantey and half of the estate of Chajju was devolved on Mst. Bibi, widow of Phatu as limited owner according to customary laws, After the death of Chajju inheritance mutation was attested on 11-1-1924 in terms thereof one half of the total estate was alienated in favour of Gainda the real son of Chajju and other half in favour of Bibi as limited owner. Mst. Bibi during her lifetime gifted the entire land of her share in favour of her daughter Mst. Jantey and gift mutation to this effect was got registered on 19-12-1965. Bibi also died on 30-8-1966 and according to law the estate was to be reverted to its last male owner i,e, Chajju (deceased). On 3-2-1968 Gainda (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) filed a suit claiming therein that Bibi being the limited owner, was not competent to alienate her share in any manner and that after retaining the legal share of Jantey rest had gone to him being a collateral of Phattu (deceased). Suit was contested and ultimately dismissed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Toba Tek Singh holding that succession opened at the time of death of Mst. Bibi in 1966 when Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had promulgated and according to section 4 of the Ordinance the respondent/defendant was entitled to the entire suit land being daughter and only legal heirs of Phattu (predeceased son of Chajju, the propositus). During the pendency of suit Gainda expired and the present appellants were impleaded as party being his legal heirs, they filed appeal against the decree of the learned trial Court, but the appeal met with the same fate on the same reasons vide judgment and decree, dated 28-5-1974, hence this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on 1992 SCM R 935 and 1993 CLC 133 and argued that the daughter will get her share to the extent of 1/2 from her father Phattu's property/estate and widow will be excluded and remaining 1/2 of Phattu's property/estate will go to his collateral, i,e, appellants.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has frankly conceded that as per recent judgment of the Supreme Court the contention of the learned counsel is correct that daughter Jantey will inherit 1/2 share from the property/estate of Phattu but argued that widow (Bibi) will not be excluded and she will also inherit 1/8 share as she was alive at the time when inheritance of Phattu opened in the year 1966, when she died. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that gift made by Mst. Bibi in favour of Mst. Jantey her daughter, will be considered valid to the extent of Bibi's share of inheritance.
4. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and I am of the view that the law declared in Zamir Muhammad Khan v. Fateh Khan and 4 others (1993 CLC 133) and relevant page is 140 which reads thus:-- "In view of law declared at the apex of judicial hierarchy, the widow/ widows of predeceased son/sons shall also inherit their due share and remainder shall revert to collaterals. In taking the above view of sections 2, 2-A, 3 and 5 of Act V of 1962, section 4 of the Family Laws Ordinance 1961, cases in Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1985 SC 407), Mst. Sunar Begum and 3 others v. Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Justice, Islamabad and another. (PLD 1988 Federal Shariat Court 1), Mst. Farida and 2 others v. Rehmatullah and another (PLD 1991 SC 213), Lal and 3 others v. Rehmat Bibi and another (PLD 1991 SC 582), Sardar v. Mst. Nehmat Bibi and 8 others (1992 SCM R 82), Mst. Qabal Jan v. Mst. Habab Jan and 9 others (1992 SCM R 935), Suba through his 8 L.Rs, and others (1992 SCM R 1721) and Mst. Fazal Nishan and others v. Ghulam Qadir and others (1992 SCM R 1773) were relied upon and found much assisting by me". still holds the field. Following the principle laid down in the above-referred case, I am of the opinion that Mst. Bibi (widow) of Phattu will also be entitled to get share of inheritance of her deceased husband's estate to the extent of 1/8.
5. Now there is dispute regarding the inheritance of Chajju propositus of the parties. His estate will be inherited as under:-- "The appellants will get 11/16 share."
' Mst. Bibi will get 1/16 share which she has already alienated to her daughter Jantay through gift Mutation No,82 and which will be kept intact to that extent.
' Mst. Jantay will be entitled to get share to the extent of 4/16 of the estate of Chajju."
6. Resultantly Mst. Jantey after getting the share of her mother through gift will retain 5/16 share which will go to her legal heirs (respondents) and the remaining 11/16 shares will go to the appellants as collaterals of Phattu and heirs of Chajju.
' With the above modification this appeal is allowed. Judgment and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside to that extent. The parties will bear their own costs.