P L D 1966 W (PLP)

Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhry for Petitioners. Malik Muhammad Jafar for Respondents. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 23rd of October 1965, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi, whereby the second appeal preferred by Mamoori Khan respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that, on the death of Nawab' Khan, his daughter Mst. Safaidan, got the property under Customary Law. The other sisters were ignored because they had married. After the introduction of West Pakistan Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act of 1962, the limited interest of Mst. Safaidan had to be terminated and the Patwari, for the purposes of getting a mutation sanctioned, prepared a pedigree- table in which Nur Khan father of Nawab Khan the last male holder, was shown to have only one wife. Subsequently he prepared a second pedigree‑table wherein Nur Khan was shown to have two wives. The revenue officer sanctioned a mutation of inheritance on the basis of the second pedigree‑table. Mst. Shahzadan filed an appeal before the Collector who accepted it and directed that a mutation should be sanctioned according to the first pedigree‑table. Mamoori Khan then went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner, who accepted it and held the second pedigree‑table to be the correct one. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Patwari should not have changed the first pedigree‑table. I do not find any bar to the Patwari's doing so if he finds that the pedigree‑table prepared by him in the first instance is not correct. At any rate, the question for determination is whether Nur Khan had one wife or two. When the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the second pedigree‑table, Muhammad Ijaz, son of Mst. Shahzadan was present and he agreed to the consideration of the second pedigree table. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, pointed out that the name is wrong and it was different person. I am afraid I do not see any force in this contention, because the person was stated to be the son of Mst. Shahzadan and he was identified by the Lambardar. The record also shows that Khan Bahadur, son of Mst. Sunehran who is to be benefited if the first pedigree table is accepted, has also stated that Nur Khan had two wives. In these circumstances, I see no justification for .interfering with the finding given by the learned Additional Commissioner The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.