1984 PLP 682 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This appeal through special leave of this Court is directed against judgment dated 13‑10‑1965 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby Letter's Patent Appeal from dismissal of appellant's writ petition in a land settlement inheritance case, was dismissed. The relevant facts noted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court are as follows :-- "The pedigree‑table of the parties is as follows: Ghulam Ali=Sitara Begum | | Mst. Aisha Begum=Ulfat Ali Khan=Mst. Majid‑un‑Nisa | | Mst. Saghiri Begum=Niaz Muhammad Respondent No. 2 ______________________________________________ | | | | Mabbub Safdar Ali Muhammad Ali Shafqat Ali Ali (Petr. No. 3) (petr. No.2) (Petr.No.1) "Ulfat Ali Khan died much before Partition. Mst. Majid‑un‑Nisa in lieu of the land she held, was allotted land in Village Tatle Ali District Gujranwala and in Village Ehsan Tebsil Shabdara District Sheikhupura. Reference to it has been made in paragraph 6 of the petition. She died and a dispute arose between Mst. Saghiri Begum, daughter of Mst. Majid‑un‑Nisa, on the one hand, and the petitioners on the other, both claiming exclusively to the inheritance of the estate of the deceased. The case of Mst. Saghiri Begum was that Mst. Majid un‑Nisa was the absolute owner of the property whereas the petitioners asserted that she did not hold any property, but was only to its enjoyment for her maintenance, which was to revert to them on her death as the reversioners of Ulfat Ali Khan. The matter, ultimately, was decided by Mr. Muhammad Saeed‑uz‑Zaman, Rehabilitation Commissioner, on the 13th of January, 1962. Mst. Saghiri, in the meanwhile, died and she was represented by her husband Niaz Muhammad, respondent. It was held by the learned Rehabilitation Commissioner that on the death of Mst. Majid‑un‑Nisa, the inheritance of her husband Ulfat Ali had to be decided and he therefore, ordered the mutation of inheritance to the extent of 2/9th to Mst. Saghiri as daughter and 7/9tb to the petitioners." Reliance was placed before the High Court on a family settlement during pre‑Independence period. The plea was rejected, amongst others, for the reason that the respondent side did not admit its existence. The argument that Mst. Majid‑un‑Nisa was only a maintenance holder in the land in question was repelled by making reference to the relevant jamabandi and she was treated as a limited owner of customary life estate. Accordingly the allotment and settlement of land on the said basis was upheld in the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the following contentions: "(i) that under Customary Law of Ambala District a sonless widow is entitled to maintenance only and hence Mst. Majid‑un‑Nisa's stepsons are entitled to inherit the lands which had been allotted to her in lieu ' of the lands held by her in India ; and (ii) that if it is assumed that Mst. Majid‑un‑Nisa was a limited owner and paragraphs 46 and 46‑A of the Settlement Scheme were applicable, even then the shares have not been correctly worked out by the Settlement authorities." Both the contentions have been re‑iterated before us. It is not denied that the relevant jamabandi entries were to be followed, in this case for purpose of settlement under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The interpretation of the said entries by the High Court as showing `life estate' rather than maintenance arrangement' (as contended by the learned counsel) is neither against any law nor principle. Moreover, the question as to what was the custom amongst the Rajputs (of the parties' tribe) in Ambala District, would require further enquiry, which it is not necessary to embark at this stage ; particularly, when the appellant has failed to show any factual basis for the plea regarding maintenance. The first plea thus cannot succeed. The second contention regarding correction of shares also, is untenable. There is no agreement amongst the parties that Mst. Aysha Begum, the appellant's mother and second wife of the last male holder died after his death. And it is agreed that unless that is the position regarding her death, the appellant cannot succeed on this point either. The contentions raised by the learned counsel having failed, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.Z. M. Appeal dismissed.