' Facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that Mst. Maryam, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.l to 3 filed a suit for declaration that she is owner of 1/4 share in the suit-land left by her father and that Mutation No,7 dated 15-2-1919 regarding inheritance of the property of her deceased father, is against facts, illegal and ineffective on her rights.
2. Precisely her case was that Gul son of Ghaman was the owner of . The suit-land, he died in the year 1918 leaving behind a son Ghulam Hussain (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) and two daughters Mst. Maryam (predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 3) and Mst. Amina Mai.
3. At the time of attestation of the mutation of inheritance, Ghulam Hussain misrepresented himself before the Revenue Authorities as the only legal heir of Gul and got the mutation attested in his favour wherein his sisters Mst. Maryam and Mst. Amina Mai who were also legal heirs were excluded.
4. Another suit was filed by Khuda Bakhsh etc. (respondents Nos.4 to 10 in this revision) successors- in-interest of said Mst. Amina Mai, against the petitioners containing similar allegations and for the same relief.
5. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court. The petitioners contested both the suits inter alia on the grounds that Mst. Maryam and Mst. Amina Mai were not the daughters of Gull deceased. After framing issues and recording evidence both the suits were decreed by the learned trial Court in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs) and against the petitioners (defendants) through consolidated judgment dated 10-12-1998.
6. The petitioners filed separate appeals against the aforesaid decrees which were also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan on 22-10-2002.
7. In this civil revision the aforesaid concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below are assailed.
8. Revision petition is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Arguments heard. Revision petition and all the annexures appended therewith perused.
10. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the suits were hopelessly barred by time; petitioners were not in possession and had claimed possession as alternate relief, hence their suits were not correctly valued and the plaints did not bear the proper court-fee stamps.
11. Contentions neither are repelled for the reason that same were neither agitated before the learned trial Court nor were taken as grounds of appeal before the Appellate Court. Anyhow, it is well-settled that devolution of property takes place through inheritance immediately without any other intervention irrespective of the fact whether mutation of inheritance is recorded or not or is incorrectly recorded. Wrong mutation confers no right in property as Revenue Record is maintained only for the purpose of ensuring realization of land revenue. There was, therefore, no question of limitation in inheritance suits.
12. A co-heir/co-sharer who is in possession is deemed to hold possession on behalf of other co- sharers. It would be' deemed that respondents were in constructive possession of their share through their co-sharers and mere omission to pay their share of produce did not constitute ouster. Hence suits for declaration were correctly valued.
13. It was next submitted by the petitioners' counsel that in Exh.P.3. National Identity Card of Mst.
Maryam, year of her birth is mentioned as 1925 whereas Gul had died in 1918. Hence she could not be deemed as the daughter of Gul who had died seven years prior to her birth.
14. This argument was also raised before the learned trial Court; it was considered and repelled at page No,4 of the judgment while discussing Issues Nos.1 and 2. Sajid Hussain PW..4, Clerk of Registration Department, had brought original record of form "A" wherein name of Mst. Maryam's father was stated as Gul. Petitioner's own witness Noor Muhammad D.W.1 had also admitted that Mst. Maryam was daughter of Gul. In the said circumstances entry regarding year of birth was not considered as conclusive proof of the year of birth of Mst. Maryam and was given no significance by the learned trial Court.
15. the said objection was not raised either in the grounds of appeal or was agitated before the learned Appellate Court. Hence it cannot be permitted to be agitated at the provisional stage.
16. It was also argued by the petitioners' counsel that issues were not properly framed. Contention is repelled outright as neither the said objection was taken before the learned trial neither Court nor it was mentioned in the grounds of appeal. It was also not agitated before the learned Appellate Court during the final arguments.
17. It was next submitted that the learned Appellate Court did not discuss the appeal issue-wise and had rendered judgment in violation of the provisions of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C.
18. Argument is devoid of any force inasmuch as when finding on certain issues is sufficient for disposal of the case, the learned Appellate Court may not dilate upon other issues. It is not alleged that by dealing with the appeal in the aforesaid manner any prejudice was caused to the petitioners.
19. Provisional jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of fact or law not involving question of jurisdiction. No jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments could be pointed out.
20. Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence and supported by sound and plausible reasoning, such findings cannot be interfered with by the High