' Nazeer Ahmad and Rashida Bibi son and daughter of Gahna deceased respectively instituted a declaratory suit with consequential relief qua Mutation of Inheritance No.833 dated 7-1-1989, that they being brother and sister of Bashir Ahmad deceased (son of Gahna) were entitled to their share in accordance with law and the said mutation was illegal, void, inoperative and ineffective qua their rights. The suit was contested. Necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were famed. Evidence led by the parties were recorded by the trial Court. The suit was eventually dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 30-9-2002, whereagainst the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs-respondents was accepted by the learned Additional Distinct Judge, Sheikhupura on 27-2-2003 which judgment has been assailed through this revision petition.
2. Findings on Issue No.3 (limitation), 8 and 9 have mainly been assailed by the learned counsel that the suit has illegally been held within limitation by the Appellate Court which according to him was time-barred and that due to a family settlement the respondents-plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the estate of Bashir Ahmad deceased. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the judgment of the learned Appellate Court.
3. Gahna the predecessor-in-interest of the parties had three sons namely Nazeer AhMad, Rashid Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad and two daughters namely Rashida Bibi and Rasoolan Bibi. There is no dispute between the parties to this extent. On the death of Bashir Ahmad who died issueless Mutation of Inheritance No.833 was sanctioned on 6-1-1989 on the report of Saifullah wherein only Rashid Ahmad and Rasool Bibi were shown as successors of Bashir Ahmad. Nazeer Ahmad. And Rashida Bibi, the respondents-plaintiffs were left out. The object undoubtedly was to exclude them from their shares of inheritance. The plea of the petitioners that Nazir. Ahmad and Rashida Bibi had been given share in the land elsewhere through a family settlement has remained unsubstantiated. The relationship of the respondents/plaintiffs was even admitted and acknowledged by Abdul Majid D.W.1, (son of Rashid Ahmad), Muhammad Ashiq D.W.2 and Abdul Qayyum D.W.3. There was thus no valid basis for excluding them altogether from the pedigree- table as given in the abovementioned mutation Exh.P.1. It is not difficult to each the conclusion that the said mutation was got sanctioned through devious, deceitful and fraudulent means to deprive them of their share. The learned Additional District Judge was thus A absolutely justified to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court and to decree the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs. Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the point of limitationthat the suit which was filed in the year 2000 qua a mutation of inheritance of the 1989 was time-barred. This aspect has also been duly taken care of by the learned Appellate Court while recording findings on Issue No.3. Suffice it to observe that on the death of Bashir Ahmad succession opened immediately and his estate vested automatically in his heirs. They thus became co-sharer alongwith the petitioners-defendants notwithstanding their exclusion from the impugned mutation. The question of limitation thus would hardly be of any significance in view of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst.
Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) and Mst. Fazal Jan v. Roshan Din and 2 others (PLI) 1992 SC 811).
' In view of the above, I find no justification to interfere with the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge in the matter. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.