2004 PLP 895 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 42 & 54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Inheritance‑‑‑Custom‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Dispute between the parties was with regard to the mutation of inheritance‑‑‑Plaintiffs claimed that the deceased was governed by Muslim Personal Law whereas the defendants asserted that the deceased was governed by custom‑‑‑Trial Court dismissed the suit but the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the suit was decreed‑‑‑Defendants failed to point out any material on record from which it could be gathered that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the parties was governed by custom‑‑‑Such question of fact had been determined by the Appellate Court which had been maintained by the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Ch. Arshad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th May, 2002. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 10‑4‑20.02 whereby Civil Revision No.335‑D of 1988 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The facts briefly narrated are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners on 12‑1‑1984 claiming themselves to be co‑owners being successors‑in- interest of Mst. Zenab and Mst. Jantan, daughters of propositus Muhammad Bakhsh alias Bakhu, who died in the year 1970, taking exception to Mutation No. 212 on the plea that their predecessor -in‑interest Muhammad Bakhsh alias Bakhu was governed by Shariat. He was survived by a son namely Ghulam Rasul, the predecessor -in‑interest of the petitioners and three daughters namely Mst. Zenab, Mst. Jantan and Mst. Amiran. The above suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants, issues were framed, the parties led their respective evidence and the learned Civil Judge, Taunsa Shaif, dismissed the suit vide his judgment dated 25‑11‑1987. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge through his judgment dated 25‑4‑1988 and the suit filed by the respondents was decreed. The petitioners filed civil revision in the Lahore High Court, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents placed on record. The petitioners throughout have failed to establish on record that their predecessor‑in‑interest Muhammad Bakhsh alias Bakhu was governed by Customary Law. The respondent has brought confidence‑inspiring evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, to substantiate that their predecessor‑in‑interest was governed by Muslim Personal Law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any material on record from which it could be gathered that Muhammad Bakhsh alias Bakhu was governed by Customary Law. This question of fact after thorough scanning has been determined by the First Appellate Court which has been maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the ‑impugned judgment. Resultantly, for what has been stated above the present petition being devoid of any force is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./J‑31/S Petition dismissed.