1 Serial No. 1 Regular cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RPLPA 2/2018 JABAR MALIK …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. M. Y. Lone, Advocate Vs. STATE THROUGH COMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO GOVT ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate with Heena Bakal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 16.05.2025 1. Review petitioner namely Mst. Taja is seeking review of a judgment dated 08.03.2018 passed by this Court in LPA No. 264/2017.The review of the judgment is sought on the ground that this Court has committed an error apparent on the face of record, in that, the Court has not appreciated that custom which was relied upon by the writ petitioner to disinherit the review petitioner was not only against Shariat Law and was also against public policy. It is submitted that the custom which has effect of depriving a female heir of inheriting the property from her father is, on the face of it, against public policy. A great deal of stress was laid by learned counsel for the review petitioner on ground (2) urged in Para 10 of the review petition. 2 2. Per contra, Mr. Lone learned counsel for respondents argued that the judgment passed by this Court dated 08.03.2018 has taken care of all aspects of the issue. He would argue that this Court took note of the prevalence of the Shree Pratap Jammu and Kashmir Laws (Consolidation) Act Svt.1977 [“Act of 1977”] and the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 2007 [“Act of 2007”] and came to the conclusion that at the time of attestation of mutation in question, the customary law in respect of succession in Muslims was holding the field. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the considered view that this Court has considered and decided questions raised by learned counsel for the review petitioner correctly. The review jurisdiction is well circumscribed and the concluded judgment can be reviewed only on the set parameters viz where there is an error apparent on the face of record; where there is discovery of new facts which were not in the knowledge of the party seeking review at the time of decision sought to be reviewed; or for some other sufficient cause. The Supreme Court has already explained the expression “sufficient cause” and it is now well settled that the “sufficient cause” to be pleaded for seeking review has to be “Ejusdem-generis” to the above two parameters. 4. In the instant case, what is sought to be objected by Mr. Shafqat Nazir is tantamount to rehearing of the matter as if we are hearing an appeal against our own order. This Court has taken a clear view that prior to the Promulgation of Act of 2007, the succession and inheritance etc were governed by the Act of 1977. Section 5, thereof, clearly made a provision for 3 the application of the customary law of succession/inheritance. This Court has also held that at the time, the succession opened in the instant case, the customary law of amongst the Muslim was in vogue. And as per the customary law, then prevalent a daughter other than the “Dukhtari-Khana- nisheen” was not entitled to inherit the estate of her father. That apart, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the review petitioner was present before the Tehsildar at the time of attestation of mutation and had, otherwise, voluntarily abandoned her share, if any, in the estate left behind by her father. As a matter of fact, she had given her consent to attest the land in favour of her brother. The review petitioner neither disputed her signatures on the mutation nor her presence during the attestation of mutation, in the proceedings before the Tehsildar. We also do not find any challenge ever made by the review petitioner to the customary law of succession/inheritance prevailing at the time of attestation of mutation on the ground of public policy or otherwise. 5. Viewed from any angle, we find no merit in this review petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 16.05.2025 “SABREENA”