' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioners assail judgment and decree, dated 3-7-1996 whereby the learned Additional District Judge Sialkot setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 28-11-1993 of the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of respondent No, 1 .
2. In the suit, it was pleaded by respondent No,1 that his father-in-law Sadhu died in the Mental Hospital Lahore. And that he left behind the following heirs and all these heirs were entitled to inherit :-- 1.Mst. Mehtab Bibi Widow 2.Muhammad HussainSon 3.Mst. Hussain Bibi Daughter 4.Mst. Nazir Bibi Daughter 5.Sardar Fatima Daughter ' And that from the inheritance Mutations, Sardar Fatima was fraudulently and deliberately excluded by others, though she admittedly was thedaughter of Sadhu. And that Sardar Fatima died whereafter Muhammad Ashiq (respondent No,1) filed a suit for declaration and possession against the defendants claiming his share from the share of his wife Sardar Fatima being her husband.
3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed their consenting written statement admitting Sardar Fatima to be their real sister and daughter of Sadhu. The petitioners being the successors-in-interest of Nazir Bibi filed a contesting written statement pleading that Sardar Fatima died prior to the death of her father Sadhu, therefore, she and consequently respondent No, 1 as the plaintiff were not entitled to inherit from him.
4. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. The learned trial Judge through judgment and decree, dated 28-11-1993 dismissed the suit. On appeal of respondent No,1, the trial Court's judgment and decree was set aside and his suit was decreed by the learned Addition'al District Judge Sialkot through judgment and decree, dated 3-7-1996. Hence the present civil revision by the successors-in-interest of Mst. Nazir Bibi.
5. The short questions herein involved are as to when did Sadhu die and whether he was survived by Sardar Fatima as his heir (being a daughter). The petitioners as defendants claimed that Sadhu died after the death of Sardar Fatima while the case of respondent No,1 as the plaintiff was that Sardar Fatima died after the death of Sadhu. There is no controversy that Sardar Fatima was the daughter of Sadhu along with two sisters namely Hussain Bibi and Nazir Bibi and one brother Muhammad Hussain and their mother was Mst. Mehtab Bibi. It is an admitted case of the parties that at the time of Sadhu's death, he was survived by his widow Mehtab Bibi, his son Muhammad Hussain and two daughters Hussain Bibi and Nazir and the inheritance Mutations Nos. 2179, 764 and 1390, dated 8-4-1953 were sanctioned in favor of these heirs. Sardar Fatima was excluded from inheritance Mutations of Sadhu in 1953. It is also not the matter of controversy that Sardar Fatima died in 1953.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners expressly admitted before this Court also that there was no dispute as to Sardar Fatima's death in 1953. Respondent No,1 as husband and heir of Sardar Fatima filed his suit in 1991 claiming Sardar Fatima's exclusion from Sadhu's inheritance as illegal and fraudulent as she per para. 2 of the plaint, was an heir of Sadhu along with beneficiaries of the Mutations.
' In the meanwhile Mst. Mehtab Bibi also died. Her inheritance Mutation was not brought on record.
Nevertheless respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed a conceding written statement being brought and sisterof Sardar Fatima and admitted her to be as one of the heirs along with them. The petitioners as heirs of Nazir Bibi (the third daughter of Sadhu) raised the dispute that Sardar Fatima having died prior to Sadhu was not entitled to inherit. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit while the learned first Appellate Court decreed the suit.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned first Appellate Court erroneously relied upon Exh.P-5 i,e, Death Certificate of Sadhu issued by the Mental Hospital Lahore as Dr. Muhammad Ayyaz Chaudhry, P.W.2 admitted that the entries in the relevant register were made on tracing out the record after receipt of process from the learned trial Judge. And that Exh.
P-5 having been prepared during the suit proceedings and entry in the register was also made during the suit proceedings and could not be relied upon. Further contended that the reasons of the learned trial Judge were not met by the learned first appellate Court. Also that the suit of the plaintiff respondent No,1 was badly barred by time having been filed after a period of about 39 years. And that it was not pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff that at the time of death of Sadhu, Mst. Sardar Fatima was alive.
' Contrarily the learned counsel for respondent No,1 i,e, the plaintiff supported the impugned judgment and decree.
8. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 having conceded the case of respondent No,1 were admitted by both the parties to be the pro forma respondents and thus their non-representation to be ineffective for the purpose of the present case.
9. Heard.
10. It is -ceased to be a dispute between the parties that Mst. Sardar Fatima died in 1953 as per the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff respondent No,1 in the form of Exh.P1.
Sadhu died in 1949 in the Mental Hospital Lahore while the petitioners as the contesting defendant and their witnesses claimed his death to be some times after the year of death of Mst. Sardar Fatima. D.Ws. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners deposed Sadhu's death to be between 1954- 1956. The learned Civil Judge placed no reliance on Exh.P-5. The learned first Appellate Court relied upon Exh.P-5 and held that death of Sadhu to be in the year 1949. Reliance of the learned first Appellate Court upon Exh.P.5. The Death Certificate of Sadhu issued by the Mental Hospital, is the main challenge of the petitioners to the vires of the impugned judgment.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners termed Exh.P-5 to be inadmissible for having been prepared during the suit. Reference wasmade to the evidence of Dr. Muhammad Ayyaz (P.W.2) who stated in his cross-examination that Exh.P-5 was prepared on receiving notice from the learned Civil Court during the suit proceedings. The learned first Appellate Court met this objection by observing that:-- "The plaintiff produced Dr. Muhammad Ayyaz, as P.W.2 who was M.S. Of Government Mental Hospital. He deposed that he issued certificate Exh.P-5 which bears his signatures; that on 20-4- 1992, he was working as Deputy Superintendent, Government Mental Hospital Lahore and has brought the register of the hospital. In his cross-examination he deposed that on the said register there is no continuous serial number and the admission date and number was mentioned; that there was only one entry with regard to the death of Khurshid Ahmad son of Fateh Khan in the register pertaining to the years, 1911-1950. He also admitted that this entry of death relates to the year, 1949. He further deposed that when he received the letter from the Court he issued Exh.P-5 according to entries of the hospital record and that after the receipt of the letter the record was traced and the date was mentioned. The perusal of Exh.P-5, shows that Sadhu was admitted in the Mental Hospital, Lahore, on 8-6-1938, vide Admission No,38/81, and he died in the hospital on 5-9- 1949. The defendants also produced the Record-keeper of Mental Hospital as D.W.4. He deposed that he has brought the only register which was also brought by P.W.2, and there is no other record available with regard to the death of the patient. Thus from Exh.P-5, it is proved that Sadhu was admitted in the Mental Hospital in the year, 1938, and according to hospital record he died on 5-9- 1949. The learned trial Court while deciding this aspect observed that according to D.W.4, there was no other record available in the hospital except the register for the year, 1948-49, and thus the entry was made in the first time in the said register when a summon was received to this effect from the Civil Court and thus came to the conclusion that the entry of death in the register as well as in Exh.P-5 were fictitious and doubtful. I am unable to understand as to how these findings are sustainable in absence of any other proof. When P.W.2, appeared even no suggestion was put to him that he made the fictitious entry in the register as well as in Exh.P.5. Even otherwise the defendants have produced absolutely no positive evidence to prove that the said date is fictitious.
In the absence of any other evidence, it cannot be said that the entry made in the register as well as in Exh.P-5, with regard to the death of Sadhu was fictitious particularly in viewof the fact that it was only the Mental Hospital from where the date of death of Sadhu could be determined. This being so, I have no doubt in my mind that Mst. Sardar Bibi was alive at the time of death of Sadhu."
12. The reasoning of the learned first Appellate Court as above reproduced has not been met by the petitioners. No legal lacuna appears to exist therein, even if the entries in the register were based upon old record which was dugout, referred to and relied upon by the Mental Hospital Authorities to make entries in the register from where Exh. P-5 was prepared. No defect or legal infirmity in the method was shown by the petitioners or their learned counsel. No fraud, manipulation, maneuvering, undue influence, illegal gratification or unfairness was alleged by the petitioners and P.W.2 was not even confronted with such allegations. The witnesses of the petitioners are uncertain, non-committal and incoherent on the date of death of Sadhu. D.W.1 Imdad Ali i,e, one of the petitioners appearing for the defendants admitted himself to be a minor of ten years age at the time of purported death of his maternal grandfather Sadhu in the Mental Hospital Lahore.
13. In view of the major discrepancies, uncertainty and non-specific depositions of D.Ws., the learned first Appellate Court was justified in placing reliance upon the only documentary evidence (Exh.P-5) coming forth in the present case. The document having been issued by the public authorities from the public record without cross-examination on its nature, was validly relied upon by the learned first Appellate Court as due proof of death of Sadhu in 1949. Both the parties admit death of Sardar Fatima to be in 1953. As such she survived as one of the heirs of Sadhu and was entitled to inherit. The learned first Appellate Court also validly held that she having immediately become a co-owner on death of Sadhu along with the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 etc. Could not have been excluded from the impugned inheritance Mutations. The suit filed by her husband i,e, respondent No,1 to claim his share of inheritance from the share of Mst. Sardar Fatima cannot, under the circumstance, be hit by the Statute, of Limitation as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi"
(PLD 1990 SC 1).
14. This civil revision is therefore held to be without any material and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to the costs.