P L D 1965 W (PLP)

The Collector interfered in appeal and increased the share of Mst. Sardaran to whom he also gave what would have been inherited by two predeceased brothers of Nur Muhammad father of Muhammad Anwar, Siddiq Hussain and Ali Muhammad by name who had died without issue before succession had opened out. A revision was preferred to the learned Additional Commissioner who made a further change as he included the two sisters of Muhammad Anwar, Mst. Ghulam Batul, Khurshid Bibi and the mother of Muhammad Anwar also in the inheritance. A second revision has now been preferred. The whole case hinges on the interpretation of section 3 of the Muslim Personal Law Shariat) Application Act which runs as follows:‑ "In respect of immovable property held by a Muslim female as a limited owner under the Customary Law, succession shall be deemed to open out on the termination of her limited interest to all persons who would have been entitled to inherit the property at the time of the death of the last full owner had the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) been applicable at the time of such death, and in the event of the death of any of such persons before the termination of the limited interest mentioned above, succession shall devolve on his heirs and successors existing at the time of the termination of the limited interest of the female as if the aforesaid such person had died at the termination of the limited interest of the female and had been governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)." The point in dispute is whether the word `his' used in line 11 above of the section refers to the last full owner or to "any of such persons" mentioned in line

9. In case the word `his' refers A to the last full owner as it would appear to be, then section 3 would mean that when the limited interest of a female under the Customary Law comes to an end, succession opens out to alt persons who would have been entitled to inherit the property at the time of the death of the last full owner as if the Shariat Act had been applicable at that time. In case some or any of these persons have died in the meanwhile succession shall devolve on the heirs of the last owner existing at the time of the termination of the limited interest of the female. The obstacle to this interpretation is the last three lines of the section beginning "as if the aforesaid such persons had died at the termination of the limited interest of the female and had been governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)." The above interpretation makes this part of the section redundant and its existence would be in favour of the word `his' as referring to "any of such persons" used in line 9 of this section. The point however, is not free from difficulty and there have been varying decisions from time to time favouring one interpretation or the other. I have in R. O. R. No. 134 of 1961‑62, Muhammad Alt and others v. Allah. Din and others favoured the former interpretation whereas the High Court have given a decision in favour of the latter interpretation (Gulzarin Khan and others v. Amir Ahmad (P L D 1952 Lah. 1)). I would in these circumstances refer the matter to the Full Bench for a decision on the point mentioned above. A. M. KHAN LEGHARI‑This is a reference made by our learned brother Mr. Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue under rule 6.of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1959. The decision of the full Board has been sought on the interpretation of section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1948 as he had found some difficulty due to conflicting constructions placed as to the persons entitled to succeed on the ‑termination of a life estate in the Lahore Full Bench Ruling, reported in P L D 1952 Lab. 1 and his own judgment reported at P L D 1962 (Rev.) 96.

2. Section 3 of the Shariat Act, 1948 runs as follows:‑ "In respect of immovable property held by a Muslim female as a limited owner under the Customary Law, succession shall be deemed to open out on the termination of her limited interest to all persons who would have been entitled to inherit the property at the time of the death of the last full‑owner had the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) been applicable at the time of such death, and in the event of the death of any of such persons before the termination of the limited interest mentioned above, succession shall devolve on his heirs and successors existing at the time of the termination of the limited interest of the female as if the aforesaid such person had died at the termination of the limited interest of the female and had been governed by the Muslim Personal Law‑ (Shariat)." The point referred to us is "whether the word `his' used in line 11 above of the section refers to the last full owner or "any of such persons" mentioned in line

9. The learned Single Member has made the following observations in this respect:‑ "In case the word `his' refers to the last full owner then section 3 would mean that when the limited interest of a female under the Customary Law comes to an end, succession opens out to all persons who would have been entitled to inherit the property at the time of the death of the last full owner, as if the Shariat Act had been applicable at that time. In case some or any of these persons have died in the meanwhile, succession shall devolve on the heirs of the last, owner existing at the time of the termination of the limited interest of the female. The obstacle to this interpretation is the last 3 lines of the section beginning "as if the aforesaid such persons had died at the termination of the limited interest of the female and had been governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)." The above interpretation makes this part of the section redundant and its existence would be in favour of the word `his' as referring to "any of such persons" used in line 9 of this section.

3. We have carefully gone through the section and are o the considered opinion that, read as a whole, the only construction which its wording will bear is that the word `his' in line 11 refers to "any of such persons", used in line 9 of the section and not to the last full owner. We find that this is also the view of the law taken by the Honourable Judges, who constituted the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in their Ruling reported in P L D 1952 Lah.

1. This construction will also obviate any occasion for the anamolous situation, which the learned single member found had arisen from his having given a contrary interpretation in his order reported at P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 96, namely:‑ "The reason for leaving out the heirs who had already died is not a matter for me to go into. It may, prima facie appear to the successors of such heirs that the statute is not fair to them but the law has to be applied as it stands."

4. The case is returned to the learned single Member for disposal in the light of the above interpretation. I. U. KHAN.‑This is a revision filed against an order dated the 28th of April 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner Lahore, who,, while exercising the powers of a Commissioner, partially accepted the revision preferred by Muhammad Anwar petitioner. The facts of the case are that one Muhammad Hayat (last full owner) died issueless in 1932 and inheritance devolved on his mother Mst. Sardaran, who became a limited owner. She re‑married in 1955 and succession reopened. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade sanctioned a mutation in accordance with which the shares were as follows:‑ (1) Mst. Sardaran (as mother of Muhammad Hayat) 1/3rd share. (2) Muhammad Anwar son (reversionary of Nur Muhammad, Muhammad Hayat) 2/3rd share. Mst. Sardaran respondent went in appeal to the Collector, who accepted the appeal and directed that the mutation be sanctioned as follows:‑ Mst. Sardaran. . . . 1/3rd share plus 2/18 as a share from the property of Wali Muhammad plus 2/18 as the share in Sadiq Hassan's property i.e., 5/9 share in all. (These brothers of Just. Sardaran had died issueless). The balance 4/9 was given to Muhammad Anwar petitioner. Muhammad Anwar petitioner went in revision to the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner (exercising powers of Commissioner) partially accepted the revision and directed that since Muhammad Anwar petitioner had two sisters (Mst. Ghulam Batul and Mst. Khurshid) and they were alive, Muhammad Anwar's sister and mother were entitled to inherit the property which fell to the lot of their father Noor Muhammad (another brother of Mst. Sardaran) who was alive at the time of the death of Muhammad Hayat. Aggrieved by these orders Muhammad Anwar went in second revision to my learned predecessor, who referred the matter to the Full Board. The Full Board have given decision that the word "his" in line No. 11, referred to "any of such persons" used in line No. 9 of the section, and not to "the last full owner." It is therefore clear that although the succession opened in 1955 yet the sharers have to be determined after considering all those persons who were entitled to inherit in 1932, in accordance with the Shariat Law. Viewed from this angle the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is perfectly correct. No interference is called for. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Revision rejected.