1999 PLP 1318 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.

By this common order we intend to dispose of the above two petitions which are directed against a common order dated 4-6-1998, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revisions Nos. 957-D and 958-D of 1998, filed by the petitioners against the common judgment/decree of learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 28-4-1998 in Appeals Nos. 243 and 244 of 1994, dismissing the same and affirming the common judgment and decree dated 17-10-1994 in Suits Nos.272/1 of 1989 and 18/1 of 1991. The brief facts are that Umar Din, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners filed Suit No.272//1 of 1991 for inter alia declaration by averring that Mst. Tabi widow of Ghulam Muhammad was a limited owner and refugee right holder-who expired during the partition disturbances. It was further averred that she was allotted land measuring 145 Kanals and 15 Marlas in lieu of land abandoned by her in village Tajpura, Riasat Kapoor Thala. It was also averred that after the death of her husband the suit land devolved upon her as limited owner. It was further stated that on the basis of the pedigree-table, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest after the death of Tabi was entitled to inherit the suit land as her collateral. It was also stated that factually the same was mutated under Mutation No. 1156 in favour of the said plaintiff, but upon appeal the above mutation was set aside by order dated 7-4-1968 by the Revenue Authorities. The above cancellation ensued further litigation inasmuch as besides the above; a writ petition was filed in the High Court and the matter was also agitated before the Settlement Authorities, then eventually the above suit was filed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest. The above suit was resisted by the respondents' predecessors-in -interest, who besides resisting the above suit, filed above Suit No.18/1 of 1991 in which they claimed that Mst. Tabi was not the limited owner and that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was not in fact collateral of deceased Ghulam Muhammad, and that they were entitled to inherit the suit land Both the above suits were consolidated. Petitioners' suit was dismissed whereas respondents' suit was decreed. After that the petitioners' above appeal and civil revision were also dismissed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal. In support of the above petitions, Mr. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended as under:- (i) That there was no evidence on record on the basis of which it could have been concluded that Mst. Tabi inherited the suit land from her deceased husband Ghulam Muhammad as the owner and not as the limited owner. (ii) That in view of the following statement of respondents' witness D.W.1 Muhammad Din son of Fazal Khan in his cross-examination: it cannot be urged that Mst. Tabi had inherited the suit land as the full owner. According to him, the above admission has been ignored and has not been taken into consideration. (iii) That the Courts below have misread the evidence, inasmuch as they over looked Exh.P/10 which indicates that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was in fact collateral of deceased Ghulam Muhammad. We are inclined to grant leave to consider as to whether the impugned decrees are in accordance with the law and the evidence on record. Leave is granted. In the meanwhile, both the parties shall maintain status quo of the suit land as obtaining today. H.B.T./M-232/S Leave to appeal granted.