1. ' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the validity of the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 27-9-1999, whereby Civil Revision No,1831 of 1984 of the petitioners, was dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts are that Mst. Karamat Bibi mother of Ghulam Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners got transferred land measuring 138 Kanals, 2 Marlas situated in Chak No,285 GB, Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh in lieu of the land left by her in India. Mst. Karamat Bibi was married to Badar Din. Out of the wedlock, Ghulam Muhammad petitioners' predecessor was born.
3. After the death of Badar Din, Mst. Karamat Bibi married to Imam Din and got agricultural land in lieu of dower from Imam Din. Imam Din died in India and on migration, Mst. Karamat Bibi submitted her claim for it and after verification of the same, the land in dispute was finally transferred and confirmed in her name. She gifted the land ie dispute to Ghulam Muhammad through Mutation No,155 sanctioned on 11-3-1970. Kamal Din, respondent claiming himself to be the real nephew of Imam Din, filed application before the Tehsildar Toba Tek Singh, stating that Mst. Karamat Bibi was the limited owner and as such, was not entitled to transfer the land to anybody and he claimed the property as reversioner and prayed for setting aside the mutation. This application was dismissed on 7-7-1971. He filed appeal before Collector, Toba Tek Singh, which was accepted and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar for further inquiry and fresh decision. After remand, the Tehsildar vide his order, dated 21-9-1978 accepted the application, held that Mst. Karamat Bibi was a limited owner, set aside Mutation No, 155 dated 11-3-1970 and sanctioned fresh Mutation No, 302. Thereafter on 7-4-1979 Mutation No,355 was sanctioned, wherbey Mst. Karamat Bibi got 1/4th share as widow of Imam Din, Mst. Sardaran Bibi and Mst. Niaz Bibi as paternal granddaughters 2/3rd share and 1/12th share was given to Kamal Din as a residuary. This mutation was challenged in appeal before the Collector, which was accepted by him vide his order, dated 3-3-1980 holding that the widow was entitled to 1/8th share while Mst. Niaz Bibi and Mst. Sardaran Bibi as daughters of predeceased son of Imam Din were held entitled to 7/8th share. Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor of the petitioners challenged Mutation No,302 dated 21-9-1978 through a civil suit wherein he impleaded Mst. Sardaran Bibi, Mst. Niaz Bibi and Kamal. Din as defendants. He alleged that Mst. Karamat Bibi was full owner of the property in dispute which she got in lieu of dower from Imam Din and the mutation of gift made in his favour was a valid mutation. At the stage of evidence, Kamal Din filed a separate suit claiming that he was the collateral, Mst. Karamat Bibi was the limited owner and Mst.
4. Sardaran Bibi and Niaz Bibi were not the daughters of the predeceased son of Imam Din. The learned trial Judge consolidated both the suits and following additional issue was added:-- "(8-a) If Mst. Karamat Bibi is not proved to be the full owner, then who are entitled to the inheritance of Imam Din vis-a-vis the suit land and to what limit? OPD-1"
5. ' The trial Court vide its judgment dated 6-4-1982 decreed the suit filed by Ghulam Muhammad predecessor of the petitioners and dismissed that of Kamal Din. Against the said judgment, two appeals were filed, one by Kamal Din and the other by Mst. Sardaran Bibi and Mst. Niaz Bibi. The learned District Judge vide his judgment dated 21-10-1984 accepted both the appeals, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified to the extent that Ghulam Muhammad was held entitled to 1/8th share in the suit land as sole heir of Mst. Karamat Bibi whereas Mst. Niaz Bibi and Mst. Sardaran Bibi were declared to be the joint owners in possession of 2/3rd share as the daughters of predeceased son of Imam Din, while Kamal Din was declared owner in possession of remaining 5/24 share. The gift Mutation No,155 dated 11-3-1970 and subsequent proceedings taken by the Revenue Authorities were declared to be without legal effect. Feeling aggrieved, Ghulam Muhammad predecessor of the petitioners filed two Civil Revisions bearing Nos.1831 of 1984 and 792 of 1985 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which have been dismissed vide its judgment dated 27-9-1999, impugned herein.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their assistance. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that Mst. Karamat Bibi was full owner of the land gifted to her, by her husband 15/16 years before the partition in India in lieu of her dower, therefore, she could not be said to be limited owner of the land transferred to her against her claim. The only document relied upon was 'Shajra Nasab' wherein her name has been shown as widow in a side does not find any support either from the oral or documentary evidence on record. Neither there is documentary evidence in support of the fact that Imam Din gifted the land to Mst. Karamat Bibi in his lifetime in lieu of dower nor oral evidence is confidence- inspiring to substantiate the plea of gift. With regard to the pedigree-table that Mst. Karamat Bibi's name has been shown in the side box of Imam Din, suffice would be to say that mere entry in the side box of the pedigree-table would not make her full owner of the estate of Imam Din unless there is other substantial evidence to that effect. The learned Appellate Court and the High Court after scrutinizing the evidence on record rightly held her to be limited owner and the legacy of Imam Din was properly distributed amongst his legal heirs which warrants no interference by this Court. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.