Case Law and Judgment (heir's property who were alive in year of death of such widow according to Muslim personal law.)

West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948)-----

-----(as amended in 1951), S. 3‑Succession to limited owner (widow)‑Deemed to have re‑opened in year of death of such widow but persons entitled to inherit will be those heirs of last male‑holder who were alive and entitled to inherit in year of death of such male‑holder‑Heirs of such heirs who had died in meantime will be entitled to inherit such dead heir's property who were alive in year of death of such widow according to Muslim personal law.

Faqir Hussain for Petitioner.

Feroz‑ud‑Din for Respondents.

MST. GHULAM FATIMA VS SIRAJ DIN
P L D1965 W. P. (Rev.) 74
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA‑Petitioner versus
SIRAJ DIN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Revisions Nos. 684 and 685 of 1963‑64, decided on 06/10/1964. 

ORDER

This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑

(1) Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Siraj Din and others (Revision No. 684 of 1963‑64).

(2) Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Siraj Din and others (Revision No. 685 of 1963‑64):

These two second revisions have been filed against an order dated the 4th of November 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who, while exercising the powers of Commissioner, rejected the two revisions preferred by the petitioner.

The facts of the case are that mutations Nos. 1749 and 2483 in respect of the inheritance of one Mst. Natho, were sanctioned .by the Assistant Collector in accordance with the directions given by my learned predecessor in his order dated the 27th of February 1961. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector, but it was dismissed. She then filed two revisions before the Additional Commissioner but those were also dismissed. Hence these two second revisions.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The view expressed by my learned prede cessor has been disagreed, to by the Full Board who have given a different version. The mutations have; therefore, to be decided in the light of the decision given by the Full Board. According to this decision, when Mst. Natho died in 1959, the succession will be deemed to have re‑opened in that year, but the persons entitled to inherit will be those heirs of Lashkar (the last male holder) who were alive and entitled to inherit in 1920.

At the time of Lashkar's death, these were four daughters (namely), Mst. Bhagan, Mst. Allah Rakh, Mst. Umro and Mst. Fatima, his mother, Mst. Amina, his widow Mst. Natho and his sister, Mst. Chuhro. According to the Shariat Law, the four daughters would get two‑third, the mother would get one‑sixth, the widow one‑eighth and the sister, 1/24th Out of these persons, Mst. Bhagan and Mst. Allah Rakhi died in 1924, without leaving any issue. Mst. Amina died in 1926, and Mst. Chuhri in 1943. She also died issueless. Mst. Umro died 1934, leaving three sons and her husband. The question for determination is as to what would be the position with regard to the shares of the heirs of Lashkar who died before 1959. For the sake of illustration, I shall take up the case of Mst. Bhagan. Her share will go to those persons who would be entitled to inherit her property, in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law and were alive in 1959. The same principle will apply in the case of other heirs of Lashkar mentioned above.

In view of what has been mentioned above, I accept the appeals and remand the cases for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above.

A. H.Case remanded.