1994 PLP 2292 (SCMR)

A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Salim Ahmad, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1993. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment and decree dated 28‑4‑1992, of the Lahore High Court, whereby two appeals filed against consolidated judgment dated 10‑6‑1980, of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, were dismissed and the decree passed in favour of Muhammad Anwar respondent was maintained.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that one Fateh Din was owner of land measuring 2315 Kanals and 16 Marlas. He died issueless on 1‑2‑1905, leaving behind his widow Mst. Baigan and mother Mst. Shahadat. On his death, the entire property was mutated ie their names in equal shares. Mst. Shahadat died in 1924 and the whole property was mutated on 10‑1‑1925, in the name of Mst. Baigan. It appears t6t Mst. Baigan remained in possession of the land, until her limited interest the estate was terminated by operation of law.

3. Muhammad Anwar, respondent claiming himself to be "Nawasa" of Mst. Mehran, the sister of Fateh Din (propositus) having failed before the Collector to establish his entitlement to inherit the property in dispute as heir of Fateh Din the last male owner, on the termination of the limited interest in the estate held by Mst. Baigan, instituted suit for possession of the land which was ultimately dismissed on 1‑2‑1974, by Civil Judge, Sahiwal.

4. On appeal filed by him, the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, on 10‑6‑1980, decreed the suit in his favour. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the District Judge, the petitioner as also Muhammad Ramzan fled two appeals which were dismissed on 28‑4‑1992, vide impugned judgment and decree, by the Lahore High Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the original Shajra Nasab did not contain the names of Mst. Mehran and Mst. Roshnai, as sisters of Fateh Din, these names were subsequently included in the Shajra Nasab prepared by the Patwari, which had no evidentiary value. It was further contended that the Additional District Judge, as well as, the learned Judge of the High Court misread evidence on record to hold Muhammad Anwar respondent as an heir of Fateh Din.

6. Leave to appeal is granted to consider, whether from the evidence on record, Mst. Mehran is proved to be sister of Fateh Din (popositus) and Muhammad Anwar respondent, as her Nawasa, if so to what share he is entitled to inherit from the estate of the last male owner. A.A./B‑239/S Leave granted