' This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision No,1093-D of 1996 and Civil Revision No,341-D of 1998.
2. One Imamu son of Nabi Bakhsh was at one time the owner of the suit land. He died somewhere in the year 1923. The land was mutated in favour of his widow Mst. Zohran vide a Mutation No,37 attested on 19-8-1923. The said Mst. Zohran remarried and the land was mutated in favour of Mst.
Fatima, Mst. Jannat and Mst. Faizan daughter of Imamu vide a Mutation No,50 attested on 25-1- 1925 (Exh.P.2). Mst. Ghulam Fatima was married and her share was mutated in favour of the remaining two daughters vide a Mutation No,316 attested on 9-2-1938 (Exh.P.1). Then Mst. Jannat married and the entire land came to be mutated in favour of Mst. Faizan (petitioner in Civil Revision No,341-D of 1998) vide a Mutation No,317 attested on 6-6-1938 (Exh.P.3). Mst. Faizan also married and as such the succession to the estate of said Imamu opened and the land was Tutated in favour of Ramzan and Nooran brothers of said Imamu vide Mutation No,412 attested on 1512-1942 (Exh.P.4).
3. On 4-2-1991 the petitioners who are children of Mst. Ghulam -Fatima filed a suit claiming that their mother Mst. Ghulam Fatima was also entitled to inherit the estate of her father namely, said Imamu and they questioned the said mutations. Mst. Faizan who was impleaded as defendant No,2 in the suit conceded the same while it was contested by Mst. Jannat and the other defendants who narrated the said history of the devolution of the estate of Imamu and denied the right of the said Mst. Ghulam Fatima as pleaded in the plaint. Issues in the suit were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide a judgment and decree, dated 26-3- 1995. An appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned District Judge, Lodhran on 3-3- 1996.
4. The plaintiffs in the suit have filed Civil Revision No,1093 of 1996 while the said Mst. Faizan has filed Civil Revision No,341-D of 1998 against the said judgment and decrees.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned judgments are violative of the provisions of section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962.
According to the learned counsel, Imamu being the last male owner, it shall be deemed that he had inherited the property in accordance with the Islamic Law and his estate is to be distributed according to Muslim Personal Law.
' Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that in fact, Ramzan and Nooran were the last male owners and as such the petitioners in both the civil revisions are not entitled to inherit and share in the suit land.
6. I have gone through the records, copies whereof are appended with the two civil revisions.
The learned Courts below have concurrently found the devolution of the suit land from the year 1923 onwards as narrated by me above. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record by the learned Courts below while concluding that the land in fact so devolved. I have myself gone through the evidence on record and find myself in agreement with the learned Courts below as to the history of the devolution of the suit land from 1923 onwards.
7. I find that the limited estate of the widow and the three ladies i,e, the daughters of Imamu came to an end ultimately in the year 1942 upon the marriage of Mst. Faizan. The land was, thus, mutated to the male heirs i,e, Ramzan and Nooran, the brothers of Imamu, vide a mutation Exh.P.4 which was attested on 15-12-1942. I, therefore, find myself in agreement with Kanwar Akhtar Ali, Advocate, for the respondents that said Ramzan and Nooran are the last male owners and it shall be deemed that it is the said owners who had inherited the suit land under custom ultimately before 15-3-1948.
It is not disputed that Imamu was a Muslim. It will, thus, be deemed that Ramzan and Nooran inherited the land as absolute owners within the meaning of section 2-A of the said Act of 1962. In this view of the matter, in the presence of progeny of the said two brothers, there is no question of the petitioners or Mst. Faizan who are the daughters of their brother Imamu inheriting anything in the suit land which for all purposes constitutes the estate of said Ramzan and Nooran having been acquired by them by inheritance from a Muslim before 15-3-1948. I seek support for my said view from a judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Faqir Muhammad and others v. Chaudhry Ghulam Nabi and others 1994 CLC 1991. No case for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees has been made out within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C. Both the Civil Revisions are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.