' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.-- - On 5-4-1980 the respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioners and the remaining respondents. I may note here that the petitioners are the children of Kaka, the original defendant No.2, in the suit while the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is, admittedly, the son of Mst.
Ramzan Bibi the sister of said Kaka. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit has also been filed for the benefit of respondents Nos.33 to 41 who are husband and children of said Ramzan Bibi. The suit-land, mentioned in para. 2 of he plaint, was allotted temporarily to Kalu Shah son of Attar Shah.
The details are given in para.4 of the plaint. Kalu Shah died on 16-9-1953 and a pidegree table was drawn on the RL- II itself snowing Kaka and Mst. Ramzan Bibi as the son and daughter of the said Kalu. Mst. Ramzan Bibi died on 4-5-1974. The respondent No.2 managed to get prepared another Khata and got the entire land mutated in his favour alone. It was in the year, 1976 that the petitioners came to know about the said facts. A declaration was accordingly sought. The suit was contested by the said Kaka with the plea that the land was transferred to him against his exclusive claim. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 14-10-1985. A learned ADJ, Sialkot, allowed the first appeal filed by the petitioners and decreed the suit declaring the petitioners and the said respondents to be entitled to 1/3rd share in the said land. This was done vide judgment and decree, dated 8-6-1992.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the evidence on record has been mis-read by the learned ADJ and that it was the only claim of the said Kaka against which the suit land was transferred. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree.
3. I may note here that during the pendency of this civil revision, the records were mis-placed. The re-construction was ordered. Both the learned counsel have placed documents on record and have argued the case accordingly with reference to the. Same.
4. I have examined the said, reconstructed records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I may further note here that the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 14-10- 1985 on the sole ground that the suit was bared by time as according to him Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was applicable. Issues Nos. 6, 7 and 8 dealing with the merits of the case were not decided. The learned ADJ sent back the file to the learned trial Court for recording findings on the said issues Nos.
6. 7 and 8. These were accordingly recorded on 22-1-1987. All the said issues were found in favour of the petitioners. It was held that the land had been allotted to Kalu Shah against his claim and that Mst. Ramzan Bibi and Kaka are his daughter and son. It was further held that the said Kaka had played a fraud in managing to get the said land transferred in his favour alone. Whereas Ramzan Bibi was also entitled to the transfer of the land in accordance with her share. These findings were recorded on 22-1-1987 and were sent to the learned Court of appeal. Exh.P.1 is the copy of the original Fard Taqseem issued in favour of Kalu Shah. The remarks column clearly narrates that the allotment has been made against Claim Nos.1896 and 1897 and that the claim has been entered at Khata No.10 of RL-II. This document is, dated 11-10-1953. Exh.P.2 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year, 1952-53 and the land is recorded to be in possession of Kalu Shah under the Rehabilitation Commissioner as an allottee. Exh.P.3 is a report made by the Central Record Office stating that claim of the said Kalu Shah against Form Nos. 1897 and 1896 have been verified while there is no land in the name of Kaka son of Kalu Shah. Exh.P.5 is the copy of Khata No.10 of RL-II wherein it has been noted that Kalu Shah had died and is survived by Kaka and Ramzan Bibi. Exh. P.8 is the death entry of Kalu Shah whereby he died on 16-9-1953 while Ramzan Bibi died on 4-5-1974 vide Exh.P.9.
Learned counsel is, on the other hand, relying on the copy of Khata. No.1 of RL-II in the name of Kaka.
This document is Exh.D.3. The claim Form number is noted as 1096.. Kaka appeared as D.W.2 in the witness box to state that the allotment was against his claim. He admitted that he is the son of Kalu who died in the year, 1954 after coming to Pakistan. He also admitted that Kalu owned land in two villages of Pathankot, He expressed ignorance that Kalu Shah had also filed a claim for the same property. He then stated that his father had transferred his land in his favour. There is no evidence on record that any claim and further of title in any land against which the claim was filed by the said Kaka.
5. Thus, upon a plain reading of the entire evidence on the record, the learned ADJ had correctly arrived at the conclusion that the land was, in fact, allotted to Kalu Shah against his claim and Kaka managed to get the Khata entered by changing the number of the claim form. The concurrent findings are accordingly upheld. So far as the question of limitation in concerned, this is primarily a dispute of inheritance and by now it is well settled that question of limitation would not arise in such cases. Reference be made to the case of Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others v. Allah Bachaya and 18 others (2005 SCM R 1447). The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.