MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby, the appeal, filed by the respondents was accepted and their suit was decreed by reversing the judgment and decree dated 6.6.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that respondents filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief regarding joint possession averring that the petitioner being only daughter of Allah Rakha, was given his entire estate, as a limited owner for maintenance purpose till her marriage or death, vide Mutation No. 816, dated 22.11.1944. They also pleaded that on marriage of the petitioner, her life estate given to her through above-noted mutation, stood terminated and the property of the last make-holder i.e. Allah Rakha stood transferred, according to Shari shares in favour of Muslim heirs i.e. 1/2 share in favour of the petitioner as daughter and 1/2 share in favour of Lal Din as real brother of Allah Rakha. Respondents claimed themselves to be descendent of Lal Din and thus, claimed themselves to be entitled to 1/2 share of the land in possession and consequently prayed a decree for joint possession of this extent.
3. The petitioner being defendant in the suit contested it by filing her written statement wherein certain preliminary objections were raised including maintainability of suit and the same being barred by time, hence not maintainable. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter, after doing the needful, out of his appraisal of evidence, dismissed the suit of the respondents mainly holding that the suit was barred by time, vide judgment and decree dated 6.6.1994.
4. Respondents aggrieved of dismissal of their suit filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge where they succeeded, as their appeal was accepted and their suit was decreed by reversing the judgment and decree dated 6.6.1994 passed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and after notice to the respondents, the same has now been laid for final determination. The respondent are represented through their counsel.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mst. Khurshid Bibi inherited the property from her father as full owner and she was so shown in the Revenue Record but a contrary view taken by the Appellate Court being contrary to record is not sustainable. He further submitted that mutation in favour of the petition was sanctioned on 22.11.1994 conferring on her full proprietary rights of the and held by her father Allah Rakha but respondents filed suit for possession challenging this mutation on 11.7.1973, after lapse of after 50 years thus the same being barred by limitation, could not have been decreed by the Appellate Court. He further elaborated his arguments by urging that limitation for filing declaratory suit under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was 6 years whereas for joint possession it was 12 years but the suit after such a long time, deserved dismissal, in view provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act. It was further submitted that Lal Din brother of Allah Rakha had relinquished his rights if any in favour of Mst. Khursheed Begum, the petitioner and the respondents being his descendents could not claim inheritance through Lal Din their father, It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that self-acquired land measuring 8 kanals was also including in the plaint out of which half share, has erroneously been granted to the respondents but his aspect of the matter escaped notice of the Appellate Court while decreeing their suit.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents refuted the arguments, of the petitioner, supported the appellate judgment and urged that the petitioner did not set up the case of relinquishment of rights by Lal Din in her written statement and consequently this matter was not reflected in the issues hence, cannot be considered by the revisional Court for the first time. He further elaborated his argument by submitting that the petitioner was a limited owner of the land included in Mutation No. 816 dated 22.11.1944, transferring the entire holding of her father in her name under custom, for maintenance till her marriage or death. According to him, the petitioner was married in year 1962 and on her marriage the life estate held by her stood automatically terminated and the sharai share automatically vested in the names of heirs of Allah Rakha who were alive at the time of his death. He further submitted that since Lal Din brother of Allah Rakha was alive at the time of death of Allah Rakha he inherited 1/2 share of the estate along with the petitioner. Replying to the arguments of the petitioner that the suit was barred by limitation, it was contended that Lal Din became co-sharer alongwith Mst. Khurshid Bibi on termination of her limited estate in the year 1962 hence, the suit in the joint possession by a co-sharer can in no manner be said to be barred by limitation. Reference to the judgments by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Ali and others Vs Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) and Mst. Waziran Vs Ranjha (1993 SCMR 1557) were made.
7. I have minutely considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably the entire estate left by Allah Rakha the last male owner was transferred in the name of the petitioner, as his daughter. Revenue Record produced before the Trial Court revealed that the parties including the last male holder belonged to a notified tribe of Agriculturalists of the Punjab, being " Jatt Ghumman" by case, who in those days, were governed by agriculturalists customary law, in the matter of succession, alienations of land inherited by them from their ancestors. This tribe especially in District Sialkot was governed by the above referred custom whereunder daughters did not inherit their fathers. Under Muslim Law, a daughter of the propositus, in absence of any son, gets 1/2 share in the estate of her father. The petitioner had not pleaded in her written statement any special custom entitling her to inherit the entire estate of her father, to the exclusion of collaterals. Since Allah Rakha was survived by progeny of his only daughter i.e. The petitioner, she could-not get any share in the property of Allah Rakha under customary law except as a limited holder, till marriage or death and under Muslim Law, she was entitled only to 1/2 share, thus the sanctioning of Mutation No. 816, dated 22.11.1944 in her exclusive name was proof of the fact that it was sanctioned under customary law, conferring on her only limited interest 'for her maintenance, till her marriage or death whichever would have been earlier. Respondent's assertion that she was married in the year 1962 and on her marriage the limited estate stood terminated, even if be not accepted, the termination occasioned by operation law on promulgation' of West. Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), of 1962 providing that limited estate acquired under custom would stand terminated with effect from 31.12.1962. Had the petitioner been not married earlier to the target dated of 31.12.1962, termination became operative from this date. Thereafter, another enactment came to remove doubts about the estate held by Muslim female, which was Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Ordinance, 1975. This enactment also reaffirmed the termination of limited estate in respect of immovable properties held by Muslim females under customary law, with effect from 31.12.1962.
8. The respondents earlier to termination of estate by marriage or death of the petitioner by operation of law, could not file any suit asserting their rights to the land held by Allah Rakha. On termination of limited interest of the petitioner, half of the estate of Allah Rakha, automatically reverted to the collaterals, out of whom, Lal Din was nearest being his real brother and was alive at the time of death of the said owner. Through this reversion to Lal Din and on his death, transfer through inheritance in favour of the respondents, they became co-sharers alongwith the petitioner hence, the suit by the co-sharer could not be held to be barred by limitation. The petitioner also could not claim adverse possession against them, as she was to hold the land on behalf of her other co-sharers. Plea of the petitioner regarding adverse possession, even otherwise, was negated from the Revenue Record, in which the possession of the respondent is duly incorporated in a part of the land, subject of dispute. Besides the judgments in the case of Abdus Satter Khan another versus Rafique Khan and another (2000 SCMR 1570), mandated that wrong entries in the Revenue Record, on preparation of each Jamabandi carrying wrong entry, could give a fresh cause of action for a suit declaration and for correction this wrong entry, It was graciously held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the suit filed within the six years from the date of last Jamabandi when the right to suit accrued, cannot be held to be barred by time.
9. Reverting to the stance of the petitioner that Lal Din had relinquished his heritory rights in the estate of Allah Rakha deceased on account of the fact that he did not challenge mutation in favour of the petitioner, in his lifetime. This plea though was not raised in the written statement yet he could file any suit unless the limited estate was terminated by marriage or death of the petitioner, being himself governed by Customary Law. Above all an unpleaded case, as noted above, deserved no consideration, as the same could not have been proved. The law regarding un- pleaded case stands settled by this time and reference in this behalf can be made to the judgments in the case of Amir Shah Vs. Ziarat Gul (1998 SCMR 593), Basit Sibtain through Legal Heirs Vs. Muhammad Sharif through Legal Heirs (2004 SCMR 578), Siraj Munir through Legal Heirs and 3 others Vs. Rai Sarwar Khan and 4 others (2001 CLC 1590), Ghulam Abbas Vs. Manzoor Ahmed and another (PLD 2004 Lahore 125) and Ehteshamuddin Qureshi Vs. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. And another (2004 MLD 361).
10. As regards inclusion of 8 kanals of self- acquired land of the petitioner in the plaint or in the appellate decree, it is enough to observe that the respondents have, been granted decree for joint possession of the land mentioned in Mutation No. 816 and none else. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that any part of the property included in this mutation was that of her, generated out of her own means. Be that as it may, the respondents would get 1/2 share out of the estate of Allah Rakha deceased and no other land.
11. For the reasons noted above, it is obvious that the Appellate Court concluded the Us that the respondents were entitled to the extent of 1/2 share out of the estate of Allah Rakha deceased and did not commit any illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This revision petition, consequently void of any force, is dismissed with no order as costs.