1989 PLP 5000 (MLD)

(2‑A) Who were the real heirs of Hassan Khan deceased entitled to inherit his property? (3) Relief. On 4‑7‑1983, the following issues were framed: ISSUES: (1) Whether the suit is within time? OPD. (2) Whether Mst. Manno was a full owner of the property not inherited by her? If so, whether the property of last full owner Hassan Khan would open for inheritance at the time of death of Manno according to the Shairat Law of inheritance? If so, what are the shares of the parties? OPPs. (3) Relief. The parties led their evidence. The respondents/plaintiffs produced Jehangir P.W.1, and Karim Bakhsh P. W.

2. Their attorney Haji Khuda Bakhsh appeared as P.W.3. He tendered copies of mutations Exs.P 1 and P

2. In rebuttal Mst. Mehr Khatoon appeared as D.W.1. Mutations Exs. D 1 to D 6 were tendered in evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs on 9‑1‑1988. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Mist. Mehr Khatoon and 4 others, the plaintiffs, filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, which was dismissed on 5‑12‑1988. It may be noted here that Peer Bakhsh one of the plaintiffs had not filed appeal. So he was joined as a respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no evidence to show that the parties were governed by custom. No riwaj aam was produced by the plaintiffs/respondents in proof of their claim; that Ali Bakhsh was last owner of the disputed property, so under Muslim Personal Laws, his heirs were entitled to inherit property left by him; that findings of the Courts below that Ali Bakhsh had inherited property under custom, so he was not full owner, is against the evidence; that there was no conclusive proof of the date of death of Ali Bakhsh and that the judgments of the Courts below suffer from misreading of evidence.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsei with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court on issue of limitation and has concurred with it on the remaining issues. Both the Courts clearly attended to the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non‑reading of material evidence by the Courts below. The submissions made by the learned counsel are not borne out of the record. I do not see any illegality or material r irregularity or jurisdictional error in the judgments of the Courts below. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limme. H.B.T./M‑1590/L Revision dismissed.