' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against judgment, dated 4-10-1999, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No,760 of 1983, arising out of a suit for possession.
2. The relevant facts in the background, are that one Faqiria son of Nathu a refugee from village Palkan, District Ambala, East Punjab, on migration to Pakistan in 1947 was settled in Village Jaura Tehsil Wazirabad. The claim submitted by him in lieu of land left by him in India was verified but pending satisfaction of the claim, he died in 1950. Subsequently, a mutation of inheritance in respect of the rights of said Faqiria was sanctioned in favor of Suleman, his son who out of the allotment of land in lieu of claim of Faqiria, mortgaged land measuring 56 Kanals, 11 Marlas with possession for a sum of Rs,6,500 with the appellants and subsequently sold the remaining land of the claim of Faqiria to respondents Nos.1 to 4 and Sadiq Ali, their brother (since dead). Later, on an application moved by Mst.. Sharifan Bibi, the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in the name of Muhammad Suleman was reviewed by A.C. (II), Wazirabad on 29-1-1964 on the ground that Suleman was not real son of Faqiria and that Mst. Sharifan was the sister of Faqiria and was his sole legal heir to inherit his property and in consequence thereto, he sanctioned the mutation of inheritance in the name of Mst. Sharifan, mother of Mst. Sattara Bibi. The appellants purchased the land of the allotment of the claim of Faqiria including the land which was in their possession as mortgagee, from Mst. Sharifan for a consideration of Rs,14,000. The respondents being vendees from Suleman assailed the order, dated 29-1-1964 of review of mutation of inheritance of Faqiria by the A.C. Wazirabad in the hierarchy of Revenue Authorities and after losing the case uptil the level of Board of Revenue while availing the remedy of civil suit sought a declaration that Mst. Sharif was not sister of Faqiria and Suleman was his sole legal heir and that mutation of inheritance was fraudulently got sanctioned in the name of Mst. Sharifan. The respondents pleaded in the suit that since the appellants obtained possession of a portion of land of the allotment of Faqiria on mortgage from Suleman, therefore, they were estopped to deny his title. The suit was contested by the appellants as well as by Suleman and Sittaran Bibi, respondents Nos.7 and 8, respectively, in the present appeal.
3. Leave to appeal was granted in this appeal vide order dated 1-12-1999 to consider the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as under:-- "(2) Leave is, inter alia, granted to consider whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of evacuee land and whether the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) could be challenged before the Civil Court by passing the forum provided for appeal etc. Provided by the Settlement Laws."
4. The pivotal question for determination in the light of arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts in the background would be regarding the status of property after sanction of mutation of inheritance in respect of the verified claim of Faqiria. Initially the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in the name of Muhammad Suleman and subsequently on the objection raised by Mst. Sharifan while appearing before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner
(Land) that Suleman was not son of Faqiria and she being the real sister of Faqiria was exclusively entitled to inherit his property, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) referred the matter to Tehsildar concerned for an inquiry into the claim of Mst. Sharifan and Tehsildar having conducted an inquiry into the matter submitted report to the Assistant Collector who called the parties and after recording their statements, revised the mutation of inheritance in the name of Mst. Sharifan .Vide order, dated 29-1-1964 on the ground that Muhammad Suleman stated before him that he was an adopted son of Faqiria and Mst. Sharifan was his real sister. Akbar Ali vendee from Muhammad Suleman challenged the above order of review of mutation by way of an appeal before the Collector, Gujranwala, who vide order dated 17-7-1964 dismissed the appeal. The said Akbar Ali filed second appeal before the Additional Commissioner Revenue who while dismissing the appeal maintained the order of Collector. The revision petition filed by Akbar Ali in Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore was dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue with the observation that petitioner should approach the Civil Court. The respondents then filed a civil suit and on the strength of order, dated 28-4-1963, by virtue of which mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in the name of Muhammad Suleman pleaded that Muhammad Suleman being real son and sole legal heir of Faqiria had to inherit his property. In the written statement filed on behalf of Mst.
Sattaran Bibi, daughter of Mst. Sharifan the claim of Muhammad Suleman was admitted and claim of Mst. Sharifan that she was sister of Faqiria was denied. The appellants who were defendants Nos.2 to 5 in the suit, pleaded that Faqiria was issueless and Mst. Sharifan, mother of Mst. Sattaran, was his sister and sole legal heir. The learned trial Judge, while deciding the pivotal issues relating to the ownership of the suit land and jurisdiction of the Civil Court in favor of the present appellants, dismissed the suit. However, on the issues relating to the relationship of Muhammad Suleman and Mst. Sharifan with Faqiria, learned trial Judge held that Muhammad Suleman was son of Faqiria and Mst. Sharifan was not proved as sister of Faqiria to inherit his property. The appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge with the following conclusions:-
(a) The review of the mutation of inheritance of Faqiria by the Assistant Collector was illegal.
(b) The dispute relating to the succession of the estate of Faqiria was beyond the jurisdiction of the settlement authorities.
(c) The allotment of land against the verified claim of Faqiria was confirmed before the review of the mutation; and settlement authorities would become functus officio to deal with the matter. The High Court while dismissing the civil revision filed by the appellants held that the dispute relating to inheritance was exclusively adjudicatable by the Civil Court.
5. Leave was granted to consider whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could be invoked in the matter and the order of allotment of evacuee property passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) could be challenged before the Civil Court instead of availing the remedies under the settlement laws. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the mutation of inheritance was reviewed before the confirmation of allotment of land and the land being still part of compensation pool the dispute, was exclusively adjudicatable by the Settlement Authorities and the jurisdiction of Civil Court in the matter was barred under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Learned counsel added that the dispute in the civil suit related to the allotment of land and not to the succession of Faqiria but the First Appellate Court and also the High Court were misdirected in holding that the land was no more an evacuee property and the matter involved in the civil suit related to the succession of claimant to be adjudicated by the Civil Court.
6. Learned counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court regarding the confirmation of the allotment of land in lieu of claim of Faqiria before the review of mutation and the non-evacuee status of the property at the time of filing of the suit in absence of any evidence to the contrary, was not questionable.
7. The dispute between the parties related to the right of inheritance in the evacuee property allotted against the verified claim of Faqiria. There can be no exception to the legal position that the disputes relating to the succession are not ajdudicatable by the Settlement or Revenue Authorities. The sanction of mutation of inheritance in the Settlement or Revenue Record as such is neither conclusive proof of right of another person in inheritance nor is denial to the right of a person in inheritance, therefore, the Revenue Authorities rightly declined to interfere in the dispute relating to the succession of Faqiria. This is an admitted fact that the order relating to the allotment of land in lieu of the claim of Faqiria attained finality for want of challenge by either party before the Settlement Authorities and the dispute in the civil suit filed by the respondents would not be related to the allotment of land rather it pertained to the right of the appellants in the property as legal heirs of the claimant. Therefore, the pivotal question requiring determination would be whether Muhammad Suleman alone or Mst. Sharifan would exclusively be entitled to inherit the property of Faqiria or both would be entitled to inherit his property. Muhammad Suleman in his statement made on oath before the Civil Court denied to have stated before the Assistant Commissioner that he was not son of Faqiria and that Mst. Sharifan was sister of Faqiria. Mst.
Sattaran daughter of Mst. Sharifan without contesting the suit conceded the right of Muhammad Suleman and denied that her mother was sister of Faqiria. The appellants have not brought any evidence on record in rebuttal to the claim of Muhammad Suleman or to establish that Mst.
Sharifan was sister of Faqiria. The sanction of mutation of inheritance in the name of Muhammad Suleman or Mst. Sharifan as sole legal heir of Faqiria would not be sufficient to exclude one or the other from the succession of Faqiria or that any one of them had exclusive right of inheritance.
Further the allotment of land in lieu of claim of Faqiria either it was temporary or confirmed at the time of review of Mutation of inheritance would not be material to determined the rights of parties in the property. However, the Appellate Court on the basis of Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 held that allotment in the name of Muhammad Suleman stood confirmed before review of mutation and consequently was no more part of compensation pool. There was no controversy between the parties with regard to the character of the property and the nature of allotment whether temporary or permanent rather the dispute related to the right of inheritance in the property. The perusal of record would show that appellants have brought no evidence, oral or documentary, except the order of Assistant Collector by virtue of which the mutation was revised and it was sanctioned in the name of Mst. Sharifan, to establish her right in the inheritance of Faqiria. On the contrary, in the written statement filed on behalf of Mst. Sattaran daughter of Mst. Sharifan, it was stated that Mst.
Sharifan was not sister of Faqiria and Muhammad Suleman was his sole legal heir. There is a concurrent finding of all the three Courts that Muhammad Suleman being son of Faqiria, was his sole legal heir and Mst. Sharifan was not sister of said Faqiria. There was no dispute before the Settlement Authorities or any other forum regarding the entitlement of Faqiria or any other defect in the satisfaction of his verified claim. The parties disputed the claim of each other in the right of inheritance in the property of Faqiria and consequently the dispute would exclusively be adjudicatable by the Civil Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.