' This revision petition is directed against concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned two Courts, whereby suit for declaration filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioner in the plaint was that one Akbar Ali Khan was his cousin (Phupizad), who died on 4-1-1981 without leaving any heirs in Pakistan leaving as his estate, a residential house, agricultural land and an amount of Rs,481,60 in the Muslim Commercial Bank. The plaintiff claimed declaration to be entitled to the said property.
3. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that Akbar Ali Khan, deceased had settled the said property in their favor on 20-7-1978 through the document Exh.D.I.
4. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried. The learned trial Court, on Issue No,3, found that the petitioner had failed to establish his relationship with Akbar Ali, deceased. Also that he had admitted that the deceased had two brothers namely Mussawar Ali and Akhtar Ali and a sister namely Mst. Zohra, who were residing in India. Therefore, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit the property of the deceased. On Issue No,4, it was found that Exh.D.1 constituted a will in favor of the defendants. Accordingly, the suit of the petitioner was dismissed on 28-1-1989.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28-2-1993 by the learned District Judge, Bhakkar. He affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No,3, while the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No,4, were set aside. The respondents have not assailed the said judgment. However, the plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the said judgment and decree in this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned two Courts misread the evidence of relationship of the petitioner with the deceased and did not take into consideration that since the heirs of Akbar Ali Khan had not come forward to claim the estate of the deceased, the petitioner was entitled to inherit it.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered. The question of relationship is essentially a question of fact which stands concluded by concurrent findings of learned two Courts. In any case, with the admission of the petitioner that the deceased had left behind two real brothers and a sister, although residing in India, he was not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased. There is not merit in this petition which is, accordingly dismissed.