' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 17-6- 1998 of the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the revision petition, challenging the judgment, dated 30-6-1996 of the learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad setting aside judgment and decree, dated 19-12-1994 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hafizabad, was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Hassan Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 8 and 12 had migrated to Pakistan from occupied Jammu and Kashmir and was temporarily allotted, on 21-1-1956, land measuring 41 Kanals, 3 Marlas in his name as head of the family comprising three persons namely, Hassan Muhammad himself, Mst. Bashiran Bibi and Mst. Naziran Bibi, his daughters. Hassan Muhammad later on married Mst. Fatima Jan respondent No,1 and out of this wedlock, he had three sons and four daughters, respondent Nos.2 to 8. Permanent rights in the land were conferred on Hassan Muhammad alone and land was permanently transferred in his name on 23-8-1978. He, after many years of conveyance of the title in his name, transferred the land by means of gift in favour of his three sons from his second wife vide Mutation No,450, dated 21-11-1985. Mst. Bashiran Bibi petitioner, thereafter applied for review of relevant mutation, permission for which was allowed by the District Collector on 23-10-1986 and in pursuance therefore, the mutation in favour of Hassan Muhammad was reviewed and a new Mutation No,508 was sanctioned on 24-12-1986 whereby Mst.
Bashiran Bibi petitioner and her sister Mst. Naziran Bibi respondent No,12, were also included as shareholders in the allotted land in view of the facts that their names figured in the temporary permit issued at the time of temporary allotment of the land.
3. Hassan Muhammad, thereafter, on 24-1-1987 challenged the review proceedings and. Resultant Mutation No,508. Mst. Bashiran Bibi, the petitioner/defendant contested the suit while the other daughter of Hassan Muhammad, Mst.Naziran Bibi did not contest the suit. Hassan Muhammad died during pendency of the suit and his heirs were impleaded as successors, who thereafter pursued the proceedings. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The said judgment was set aside in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad vide judgment and decree, dated 30-6-1996. The Revision Petition of Mst. Bashiran Bibi petitioner having failed vide impugned judgment, has given rise to the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. The only question urged is that since initial temporary allotment was allowance for maintenance of the family comprising three persons including Mst. Bashiran Bibi, petitioner, permanent allotment was also required to be made in the name of three persons, Hassan Muhammad, Mst. Bashiran Bibi and Mst. Naziran Bibi, and that Hassan Muhammad could not get the allotment in his own name exclusively. Reliance is placed on Memorandum, dated 24-11-1978 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which reads as under:-- "According to the decision taken in the meeting held on 10-3-1978 as conveyed to you vide this office Cir. Memo. No,1270-78/579- R(L), dated 30-4-1978, the proprietary rights are to be transferred in the name of the head of the family, Many representations were received, from the Jammu and Kashmir Refugees by the Minister for Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas, expressing apprehension that with the previous decision to grant proprietary rights in the name of the head of the family, the other family members included in the allotment chits especially those who are not the successor- ininterest may be deprived of their rights. The Minister has desired that the proprietary rights, of the temporary allotted land may be granted in the name of all the members of the family indicated in the allotment chits if a request to this effect is received from any member of the family who is not successor-in-interest of the head of family."
5. Learned Judge of the High Court has held that Mst. Bashiran Bibi. Petitioner and Mst. Naziran Bibi respondent No,12, who were family members of Hassan Muhammad as his daughters, at the time of temporary allotment/Guzara allowance are his successor-in-interest (being daughters) whereas the said memorandum contemplates allotment in the name of 'all the members of the family' only when they are not the successor-in-interest of the head of the family" and as such "they are not entitled to have individual and separate rights of allotment". It was observed that "they could inherit their Shariah share on the death of their father and opening of his succession from what was left by him".
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the interpretation placed by learned Judge of the High Court on the afore noted memorandum is incorrect. The petitioner being one of the members of the family indicated in the allotment chit is entitled to receive her 1/3rd share in the allotted land.
7. Learned counsel, on query, stated that Mst. Bashiran Bibi was married in the year of 1964 and as such at the time of temporary allotment in 1956 was not having her independent family and was admitted a member of the family of Hassan Muhammad. The words "who is not successor- ininterest of the head of the family" contained in the aforesaid memorandum fairly point out that these refer to such persons whose names are mentioned in the permit and who may himself/ themselves constitute a family independent from the head of the family mentioned in the Guzara permit. In order to find out whether Mst. Bashiran Bibi can claim to have constituted a separate family and not forming part and parcel of the family of Hassan Muhammad, we asked the learned counsel as to when Mst. Bashiran Bibi/ petitioner was married. His reply was that she was married in the year 1964. He further conceded that the grievance has arisen because of the gift made in favour of the step-brothers and that had the gift not been made, no such move to have the name of the petitioner included in the mutation conferring proprietary rights, would have been made. It is obvious that at the time of temporary allotment as Guzara allowance, Mst. Bashiran Bibi/petitioner was the member of family of Hassan Muhammad, her father, and she being also successor-in- interest of the head of the family, cannot take benefit of the aforesaid memorandum.
' In this view of the matter, no justifiable exception can be taken to the view which prevailed with the learned Judge of the High Court. Leave to Appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.