' Mst. Naziran Bibi respondent instituted a suit for partition of the property left by his deceased father namely Karam Elahi against her brother Ghulam Rasool and mother Mst. Fazal Bibi, being son and widow of deceased Karam Elahi respectively. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant on the ground that they have purchased the property before the death of Karam Elahi with consideration. The learned Trial Court after framing the issues and recording evidence of parties passed preliminary decree on 9-5-1994 while decreeing the suit to the extent of property shown in Annexures B and C and dismissing the same to the extent of property mentioned in Annexure A. Being aggrieved by the above said decree both the parties filed appeals and the learned Appellate Court disposed of both the appeal on 28-3-1994. The appeal of Mst. Naziran Bibi' regarding preliminary decree to the extent of property mentioned in Annexure-C was accepted and preliminary decree to that extent was set aside. It was also held that the properties mentioned in Annexures A and B were paritionable and decree to his effect was passed and the file was sent to learned Trial Court for appointment of Local Commission and passing of final decree regarding suit property mentioned in Annexures A and B. Accordingly the learned Trial Court passed the final decree on 26-6-1997 on the report of Local Commission. The petitioner instituted the appeal against the above said decree and the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur vide his judgment and decree, dated 19-11-1998 dismissed the same.
2. In response to pre-admission notice Mr.Zhaid Hussain Khan, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of respondent.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the record. The appeal filed by the present petitioner was barred by time. The .Learned counsel for respondent contends that the learned trial Court passed decree on 26-6-1997 and till 4-8-1997 the petitioners even did not file application for obtaining certified copies and the period for filing of appeal had elapsed. It is further pointed out that the application for obtaining certified copies of judgment and decree was filed on 4-8-1997, which were supplied on 17-8-1997 and the appeal was instituted on 1st September, 1997. The learned Appellate Court after narrating all the facts refused to condone the delay of filing the appeal. The learned Appellate Court not only dismissed the appeal being barred by time, but also decided the same on merit. The Local Commission was appointed by the Trial Court who submitted report and no objection whatsoever was filed by the petitioners about the report of the Local Commission. 'Meaning thereby they were fully satisfied with the proposal submitted by the Local Commission and the learned Trial Court in this view of the matter was perfectly justified in passing the final decree in this regard. It is not denied that the respondent is daughter of Karam Elahi, deceased, but it appear that the petitioners are not willing to distribute the property left by the deceased Karam Elahi fairly and justly and have come with a plea that they have purchased this property from Karam Elahi in his lifetime, which fact was not proved and, therefore, not believed by the Courts below. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court suffers from no illegality or infirmity in this regard. The respondent being legal heir of deceased Karam Elahi is entitled to get partitioned her share in accordance with law.
4. In view of the above this civil revision has no merit and the -same is dismissed with costs.