1998 PLP 411 (MLD)

Inheritance

Issu-less widow

Full brothers sons

Entitlement to inherit widows share on her death

Widow had inherited estate left by her husband as sharer to the extent of one-fourth whereas remaining three-fourth share had gone to legal descendants of deceased male landowner

Respondents who were sons of her brothers on widow's death, were entitled to inherit estate left by the widow as being full brothers sons

Courts below had committed no error in law while declining claim of appellants i.e. descendants of male landowner

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42. Muhammad Ayub Sabir for Appellants. Manzoor Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st March, 1997. MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J

This appeal, with the leave of the Court, has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on June 11, 1996, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree, dated April 22, 1995, passed by the District judge Mirpur was dismissed.

2. The brief facts, forming the background of the present appeal, are that land measuring 11 Marlas and 7-1/2 Sarsia, comprising Survey Nos. 43, 680, Khewat No.7/6 Khata No.38 and Khewat No.26/19, Khata No. 125, situate in village Dadyal, Tehsil Mirpur which is a subject of dispute between the parties, was acquired by the Government for irrigation scheme, vide award dated June 24, 1993, by the Collector Land Acquisition Mirpur. The appellants filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that they being descendants of Qaim Din and Nazam Din were entitled to the compensation amount which has been wrongly awarded to respondents as being sons of Satroo, the brother of Mst. Fateh Begum who was widow of their uncle Boota. The learned District Judge after elaborate sifting of evidence, declined them the decree prayed for. The appeal taken in the High Court by the appellants herein was also dismissed by the High Court vide the judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal.

3. This is an admitted position between the parties that the land in dispute initially belonged to one Ghariboo on whose death his estate was mutated in the name of his three sons, namely, Boota, Qaim Din and Nazam Din, Qaim Din and Nazam Din died before their brother Boota, the property left by Qaim Din and Nazam Din was mutated in the name of their legal descendants. Boota also died issueless laving behind his widow Mst. Fateh Bi who was held entitled to receive the compensation amount of the extent of one fourth share according to Muhammadan Law of Inheritance to which she was entitled. The remaining three fourth share of Boota was given to the legal descendants of Qaim Din and Nazam Din. Mst. Fateh Bi had a brother, namely Satroo, during this period she also died and her one-fourth share was given to Adalat Hussain and Gul Hussain respondents who happened to be the sons of her brother Stroo. The precise case of the appellants as pleaded by their learned counsel is that after the death of Fateh Bi the land in dispute would have reverted to Qaim Din and Nazam Din who were the brothers of her husband namely Boota. They being the legal descendants of Qaim Din and Nazam Din were, therefore, entitled to receive the' compensation amount of Mst. Fateh Bi, deceased. The proposition propounded by the learned counsel for the appellants could have been justified only if it would have been proved that Mst. Fateh Bi had inherited the land in dispute after the death of her deceased husband, as a limited owner. But admittedly in the present case she had inherited the estate left by her husband as a share to the extent of one-fourth whereas the remaining three-fourth share had gone to the appellants being the legal descendants of Qaim Din and Nazam Din, the brothers of Boota, On the death of Mst. Fateh Bi, the respondents who were the sons of Satroo, the brother of deceased were entitled to inherit the land left by Mst. Fateh Bi or receive the compensation amount of the land of her share in accordance with item No.9 of the Table of Sharers cited by the learned counsel for the respondents as being full brothers sons The learned District Judge as well as the High Court in our view committed no error in law while declining the claim of the appellants. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, the appeal merits no consideration which is hereby dismissed with costs. A.A./235/SC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.