' Challenging the validity of judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, dated 7-1-1999 by which the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge was affirmed, the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that Imam Din son of Muhammad Din, Caste Gujjar, was owner of the lands, in dispute, measuring 58 Kanals, 2 Marlas situated in Chak Qazi Wah, Tehsil Lodhran at present Tehsil Dunyapur District Lodhran. One Munshi Khan representing himself as general attorney of aforesaid Imam Din, executed a registered sale-deed dated 4-5-1964 for the lands in dispute in favour of Mehdi Hassan, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Yaqub, in consideration of Rupees eleven thousand. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit to get a declaration that the sale- deed dated 4-5-1964 registered with Sub-Registrar, Lodhran regarding the lands in dispute was liable to be declared void and ineffective upon the inheritance rights of the plaintiffs. As a consequential relief prayer for grant of recovery of possession was also made in the aforesaid suit.
The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 3-3-1996 holding that suit was barred by time; and the plaintiffs were not the legal representatives of aforesaid Imam Din; and the sale through impugned registered sale-deed in favour of Mehdi Hassan and others the purchaser was valid.
Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree appeal was dismissed by learned District Judge on 7-1-1999 holding the suit to be barred by limitation. Hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners have argued that as the question of inheritance of the plaintiffs/ petitioners was agitated in the suit, therefore, no question of limitation was involved in it. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that as the fraud was committed during the process and execution of the registered sale-deed, therefore, question of limitation could not be raised in the case.
4. While the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have vehemently opposed the contention by replying that the copy of the impugned registered sale-deed was obtained by Noor Din, one of the plaintiffs, in the year 1965 yet they had not filed the suit uptil the year 1998. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners/plaintiffs have known this sale-deed, and it was, therefore, that they had not got the land mutated for inheritance although they had got transferred through mutation of inheritance the lands of other Mauza. They have referred to Exh.P.4 a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners for the lands of another Revenue Estate. It has also been contended that the case having been decided by both the learned Courts concurrently, upon findings of facts, the civil revision was not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. The hearing of arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the perusal of the record minutely with their assistance have brought me to the following conclusions.
6. The plea of inheritance cannot be raised and given any weight unless the obstacle in the way of getting property inherited, is removed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. The registered sale-deed dated 4-5-1964, which has been disputed, had come to the knowledge of Noor Din, one of the plaintiffs/petitioners in the year 1965 when he had obtained certified copy of the impugned sale- deed, which was exhibited on the record of the learned trial Court as Exh.P.2 by the plaintiffs, themselves, The aforesaid copy of the sale-deed clearly shows that the plaintiffs/ petitioners had gained the knowledge of the disputed sale transaction with regard to the disputed land in the year 1964. As to why from 1964 till 1978, the petitioners/ plaintiffs had remained silent, has not been sufficiently explained.
7. The inaction, silence and the negligence for a long drawn period of more than 14 years speaks volume as against the bona fides of plaintiffs/petitioners. Their inertia has become the cause of their losing the sympathies of the Court as against the respondents. The law and the Courts are slow to extend help or assistance to such an indolent who let allow their alleged owned property to be proclaimed and enjoyed by others. The law has enacted these principles into the form of Limitation Act of 1908. The maximum limit of 12 years provided by the Limitation Act for the suit has even been permitted by plaintiffs/petitioners to lapse. The plea that fraud vitiates the solemn proceedings, actions or transactions, there is no cavil to this proposition. But question arisen herein is that a fraud even if it be considered to have been committed in a transaction and is known to the person deprived by it, can permit him to have it unattended for all the long period of 14 years.
The answer cannot be given in the positive. Unfettered discretion to remain inaction has not been granted by law. One's desire has to yield to it and the sufferer of fraud is also bound to get it declared as such, within the period prescribed by law.
8. In the same way, the copy of mutation of the lands left by the deceased in another Mauza, which has been brought as Exh.P.4 and which was got sanctioned on 27-3-1965, by the plaintiffs in their favour, proves that the petitioners/plaintiffs had admitted the correctness of the transaction and its genuineness at that stage, otherwise they would have strived the disputed property being mutated in their favour as legal representatives. They having not claimed this property to have been devolved upon them and not making any efforts for the sanction of mutation in their favour, clearly depicts that the plaintiffs/petitioners had no claim with regard to the property and they had admitted impliedly the ownership of the purchasers/defendants. The copies of Jamabandis, Exh.D.17- to Exh.D.19 and copies of Khasra Girdawaris from Kharif, 1966 to Rabi, 1970, Exh.D.15 have shown the possession of the respondents/defendants upon the lands in dispute and Imam Din has been shown as tenant under, them. So, all these documents have proved that the petitioners/plaintiffs had got the knowledge of the sale having been made in favour of Mehdi Hassan and others purchasers in' the year 1964 yet they opted not to challenge the vires of the aforesaid sale-deed. So, the instant suit, which was brought after the delay of more than 14 years five months and 21 days cannot be considered to have been filed within limitation especially when the plaintiffs/petitioners had got the knowledge of the impugned sale-deed. Therefore, the learned Courts having found concurrently and rightly the suit being not maintainable, the civil revision is also dismissed without any order as to costs.