' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 9-5-2000, passed by the Additional District Judge, Okara, 'whereby judgment and decree, dated 24-4-1999, passed by the Civil Judge, Okara, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was reversed.
2. Respondent No,1 plaintiff Nawab Din, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the sale-deed dated 18-7-1985 and Mutation No,30, dated 30-10-1985, in favour of the petitioner/defendant, according to the averments of the plaint respondent No,1 claimed to be the brother of the petitioner Chiragh Din son of Ilam Din, the dispute pertains to 96 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land located in Chak No,42/4-L, Tehsil and District Okara, according to the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 property in question belonged to Ilam Din and being his successor and brother of the plaintiff he was entitled to succeed to it, the disputed land was obtained by Ilam Din from Cooperative Society, upon his death in 1950 the land was jointly cultivated by the petitioner and respondent No,1, they paid the dues to the Government but the petitioner in collusion with the revenue staff managed to get executed a sale-deed exclusively in his favour on 18-7-1985 and thereafter mutation was also sanctioned on 30-10-1985. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant by filing written statement, of the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff being the son is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased's Illum-ud-Din if so, to what extent? OPP
(2) Whether the "Patta Malkiyyat" by way of sale-deed, dated 18-5-1995 and Mutation No,30, dated 30-10-1985 being the superstructure of said "Patta Malkiyyat" relating to the suit property owing to omission the name of defendant as legal heirs is against law, fact and do not produce legal effects upon the alleged right of inheritance of the plaintiff and are liable to be rectified? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit and has come to the Court with clean hands? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff's suit is false and frivolous, if so, then whether the defendant No,5 is entitled to claim the compensatory cost from the plaintiff in lines of provision of section 35-A, C.P.C.? If so, to what extent? OPD
(6) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter in issue? OPD ' After recording of evidence and hearing the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 holding it to be time-barred pursuant to issue No,4, rest of the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereof respondent No,1/plaintiff filed an appeal, which after contest, was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner did not challenge the findings qua the remaining issues, therefore, they attained finality. The petitioner is aggrieved of this judgment hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Hafiz Khalil Ahmad, Advocate has argued vehemently that the suit was time-barred, resultantly, finding qua issue No,4 by the trial Court was in consonance with law and record , the impugned judgment is against record as well as evidence tendered by the parties, it is an admitted position on record that this suit was instituted on 7-1-1997, whereas the petitioner became a member in 1950, likewise the sale-deed Exh.P.1 was executed on 18-7-1985, while Mutation No,30 (Exh.P.2) was sanctioned on 30-10-1985, thus, he seeks the setting aside of the impugned judgment.
4. Contrarily learned counsel for respondent No,1 has vigorously supported the impugned judgment, he has argued that it is an admitted position that the petitioner and respondent No,1 are legal heirs of Ilam Din, the property in question belonged to their father and pursuant to the directions issued by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, to all the Deputy Commissioners the property was required to be administered to the legal heirs, the only exception was that if there was no child then the property was to revert to the nominee, according to the learned counsel the sale-deed and subsequent mutation are nullity in the eye of law being fraudulent and also that it was bounden duty of the Cooperative Society to ensure that the property devolves upon the legal heirs.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and also perused the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the trial Court. It is an admitted position on record that all the issues except issue No,4 were decided in favour of respondent No,1, they have not been challenged, thus, they attained finality, so far as Issue No,4 is concerned the lower Appellate A Court is correct in holding that pursuant to the direction of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, it was the bounden duty of the Cooperative Society to ensure that the property devolves upon the legal heirs, it is also clear from record that the property was in joint possession of the petitioner and respondent No,1, further section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, also affirms this position, it is settled law that legal heirs cannot be non-suited on the B question of limitation, further the society did not fulfil its obligations and duty and violated the law and procedure. Resultantly, any edifice of structure built upon any illegal order cannot sustain. The lower Appellate Court has considered the material on record and has also interpreted the law correctly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material illegality or irregularity or misapplication of law, resultantly, this petition has no merits and is dismissed leaving the IC parties to bear their own costs.