RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 26-5-1999 whereby their` civil revision directed against concurrent findings of fact dismissing their suit as well as appeal was upheld.
2. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Mst. Aimna Bibi wife of Ghulam Haider had been divorced by the. deceased Ghulam Haider owner of 228 Kanals of land in Mauza Banka, Tehsil Wazirabad and that Mst. Sumaira Begum was not legitimate daughter born from the wedlock and was, therefore, not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased.
3. Ghulam Haider was married to Mst. Aimna Bibi. After his death, vide mutation, dated 30-11-1991 record of rights in respect of land was mutated as under:--
(i) Mst. Aimna Bibi: 1/8th share
(ii) Mst. Sumaira Begum:1/2 share
(iii) Mst. Sikana Bibi: 3/8th share
4. Besides the petitionerssuit, Mst. Sakina Bibi, sister of the deceased also filed a suit for declaration, claiming entire estate of the deceased as his sole surviving heir. Both the suits were resisted and were ultimately dismissed by the trial Court. Petitionersappeal ended without any success, while Mst. Sakina Bibi did not challenge the judgment and decree. Petitionerscivil revision against concurrent findings of fact also met the same fate, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. We have heard Ch.. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and examined the record as well as the impugned judgment with his eminent assistance.
6. Sole point urged by the learned counsel is that learned Judge in the High Court has not at all adverted to the argument advanced before him that learned Additional District Judge did not take notice of the argument advanced before him by the petitionerscounsel and he simply agreed with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. We are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view of the learned counsel, as Additional District Judge has not only discussed the evidence but also given additional reasons for affirming the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court on correct and careful discussion of the oral as well as documentary evidence. From the record, it appears that both the Courts below concurrently found that deceased-Ghulam Haider did not divorce Mst. Aimna Bibi and that Mst. Sumaira Begum was born from the wedlock during the subsistence of the marriage, therefore, there was no occasion for disentitling her to inherit the estate of the deceased. It is well-settled that law leans in favour of presumption of paternity rather than illegitimacy, unless proved by strong evidence. Courts below, including the High Court, have elaborately discussed the evidence on record and more particularly, admission of petitioner-Nazir AhmadP.W. 7 himself to arrive at a conclusion that petitioners miserably failed to substantiate the case pleaded by them. As there does not appear to be any misreading or non-reading of evidence or misconstruction of law and no substantial question of law of general public importance has been raised in this petition, we are left with no option but to dismiss the same.
7. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.