' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---One Barkat Ali, was the owner of certain agricultural land in East Punjab, where before the partition of sub-continent, he died issueless; his estate under the customary law as a limited owner, was mutated in favour of Mst. Bibi, his widow owner. On the creation of Pakistan, Mst. Bibi migrated and applied for the allotment of the land in lieu of what has left in India and was allotted 31 Kanals and 6 Marlas situated in Mouza Khaluan Tehsil District Gujranwala; subsequently, through a registered sale-deed, dated 15-12-1982, she transferred the whole of the said land in favour of her nephew Abdul Ghafoor, the predecessor of the respondents. On 17-1-1985, the petitioner brought the suit for declaration claiming the right to inheritance of the said property as the heirs of Barkat Ali admittedly being his real sisters and also challenged the sale in favour of Abdul Ghafoor. The suit was contested by the respondents and following issues were framed.
(1) Whether plaintiffs being legal heirs of deceased Barkat Ullah are entitled to get 2/3rd shares from the suit-land? OPP
(2) Whether the deceased Mst. Bibi, being limited owner is only entitled to retain suit-land to the extent of her 1/4th share? OPP
(3) Whether the impugned transaction, ,dated 15-9-1982 allegedly made by Mst. Bibi in favour of Abdul Ghaffar is an ostensible one? OPP
(4) If above issue is proved in affirmative, whether the impugned sale-deed, dated 15-9-1982 is illegal and has no effect over the rights of the plaintiff? OPP
(5) Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(7) Whether the suit is undervalued, if so what is the correct valuation? OPPs
(8) Whether the suit is false and frivolous and defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD
(9) Whether the defendants are bona fide purchaser for valuation without notice of registered sale-deed, dated 15-9-1982? OPD
(10) Relief.
' Parties were put to trial and the learned Civil Judge answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners except that of the limitation and dismissed the suit as being barred by time.
Against the above, petitioners preferred an appeal but without any success.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that having come to the conclusion that Mst. Bibi was limited owner and the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Batkat Ali to the extent of 1/3rd share, yet the two Courts below on erroneous view have dismissed the suit, as being out of limitation. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported as Mohsin Khan and others v.
Ahmad Ali and 2 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 1) to argue that there is no limitation to enforce the right of inheritance and when it was proved on the record that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased; the alleged bar contained in section 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975 had no application.
3. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the aforesaid Act, 1975, the petitioners were bound to challenge the alienation made within the period of one year and having not so done, their right has extinguished. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the cases reported as Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha, v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1971 SC 791) and Hashmat Ali and others v. Mst. Jantan and 6 others (1993 SCMR 950).
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The correct application and interpretation of the provisions of section 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) A Act, 1975, has to be interpreted in the light of the decision, preamble andthe provisions of section 2, which clearly shows that fresh period of limitation was provided under the law and to such alienation and order of succession of the property, which had become time- barred and the person aggrieved would have a fresh period of limitation. In the instant case, no alienation of property, has been made by Mst. Bibi, before 1975, rather it is somewhere in 1982 that she has transferred the property to Abdul Ghaffoor, her nephew, resultantly, the said provision is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, as has been held in PLD 1977 Lahore 1354 (Hakeem Mahboob Ali Khan and another v. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala and 70 others) as under:- "The Act, 1976 was promulgated to remove difficulties inter alia arising out of the expiry of the period of limitation for suits of the nature described in its section 2 and 3. The provisions about limitation in the Act would not, therefore, apply to cases where the limitation period for a suit even though it may be a consequence of declaration by the statute of certain orders or decrees etc., being without lawful authority, has not expired under Limitation Act. The Act does not curtail the period of limitation provided by the Limitation Act; it rather enlarges the time for commencement of action in cases where either there is no limitation period left or the period of limitation left is less than the period provided by the Act of 1975."
The above reproduced para. Of the judgment, clarifies the position. Moreover, it is settled law that there is no limitation provided for enforcing the inheritance, thus the alienation made by Mst. Bibi being void in nature, could not effect the right of inheritance of the petitioners, who were admittedly the heirs of the deceased and were entitled to 3/4th share of his estate, therefore, to non-suit the petitioners on the question of limitation is absolutely illegal and unlawful. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent and mentioned in paragraph No,3 of the judgment, are distinguishable and have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
' In the light of above, this revision is allowed, the judgment and decrees of the Courts below on the issue of limitation is set aside, thus by reversing the said finding as the other issues are answered in favour of the petitioners, 'which have not been challenged by the respondent, even during the oral course of argument, resultantly, the suit of the petitioner is decreed to the extent of 3/4th share in the estate of deceased Barkat Ali and to that extent, the alienation made by Mst. Bibi, in favour of Abdul Ghafoor stands set aside.