PLJ 2020 Lahore (Note) 25 Specific Relief Act 1877, Section 42 SRA–Suit for declaration–Decreed–Appeal–Allowed–Challenge to–Sole legal heir–Inherited property–Violation of glorified principle of Islam–From perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence, it transpired that Mst. Daulat was daughter of Din Muhammad whereas respondents/defendants firstly denied parentage of Mst. Daulat but later DW-1 in his evidence admitted that Mst. Daulat was daughter of Din Muhammad, as such, by operation of law she (Mst. Daulat) was entitled to get her 1/2 share i.e. 68-Kanals 07-Marlas from property left by her deceased father Din Muhammad–So far as arguments of learned counsel for respondents regarding prevailing of custoymary law at time of sanctioning of impugned mutation are concerned, they did not produce any evidence in this regard–Further they claimed ownership of property on basis of custom and it was their bounded obligation to prove existence of custom through strong believable evidence but they failed to prove existence of any custom in family/tribe, as such, impugned Mutation No. 1997 was wrongly incorporated in revenue record whereas after death of Din Muhammad, she (Mst. Daulat Bibi) , by operation of law became owner of 1/2 share in estate of her deceased father–Impugned mutation was erroneously attested in favour of her uncles–Undoubtedly parties to lis are Muslims by faith and strongly believe in Prophet of Islam and Shariah, as such, all Quranic principle are completely applicable upon Muslim community with year of exclusion of any custom etc. whereas customary laws are only applicable where there exists no other law relating to a community, as such, impugned mutation was entered and attested in violation of glorified principle of Islam, such mutation would not create any title in favour of respondents/defendants in accordance with Sharia Law of Inheritances settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.