' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---This single judgment shall decide the Present revision petition (C.R.
No,1404/1991) and the connected petition (C.R. No,1405/1991), as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions and they have arisen out of consolidated judgment.
2. Both the revision petitions proceed against the consolidated judgment, dated 13-6-1991 whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed two appeals, filed by the petitioners and maintained the single judgment, dated 20-3-1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge, through which he decreed both the suits, one filed by Mst. Gulshan Ara and the other by Ch. Saeed Anwar alias Mehboob.
3. The relevant facts, as .Discernible from the available record, are that one Muhammad Essa died in the year 1910, his property was inherited, as mutated in the year 1911, through mutation (Exh.D.1), by his four sons, namely Ahmed Din, Fazal Din, Hassan Din and Noor Din, to the exclusion of his daughter, namely Mst. Fatima Bibi and wife Mst. Taliba Bibi, who died in the years 1923 and 1935, respectively. Admittedly, no property was ever mutated in their favour. In the year 1945, Lahore Improvement Trust acquired the land inherited by and mutated in favour of the aforesaid four brothers, the question proceedings were initiated, the award was announced by the Acquisition Collector in favour of those persons and the possession of the land was taken by the acquiring authority. Consequently, upon the application of the aforesaid persons, 18 Plots bearing Nos.77 to 94 in Poonch Road Scheme, were transferred by Lahore Improvement Trust to them and the possession of which was also delivered to them. On 11-7-1976 Mst. Gulshan Ara, claiming to be the daughter of Mst. Fatima, daughter of Muhammad Essa, filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against LDA and the petitioners, thereby asserting that she was also entitled to inherit certain plots. On 3-11-1976 Ch. Saeed Anwar alias Mehboob filed another suit for declaration and permanent injunction, against the same parties, also claiming share in the exempted plots on the plea of being the son of Mst. Fatima Bibi, daughter of Muhammad Essa. The petitioners contested both the suits by way of filing the written statements, inter alia, submitting that the suits are barred by time; as the mutation of inheritance was made in favour of the aforesaid four persons on 28-1- 1911 while the suits were filed on 11-7-1976. The learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and consolidated issues were framed. Both the parties produced their evidence and the learned Civil Judge decreed both the suits, vide consolidated judgment, dated 20-3-1989. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed two separate appeals, but without any success, as the learned Additional District Judge both the appeals, vide single judgment, dated 13-6-1991 hence the present petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the mutation of inheritance (Exh.D.1) was sanctioned in favour of four sons of Muhammad Essa in the year 1911, but the same was neither challenged by Mst. Fatima Bibi during her life time nor by any other person up to 1976. He has further submitted that Muhammad Essa died in the year 1910, the mutation was sanctioned in the year 1911, the property was acquired by Lahore Improvement Trust and the award was announced in the year 1945, while the suits in hand were filed in 1976, therefore, both the suits were patently barred by time, thus, liable to be dismissed on this short ground. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents, while admitting the aforesaid facts, has submitted that limitation to file the suits will start from the date of the transfer of exempted plots by LDA to the four persons and not from the date of the acquisition of the land or award.
5. Upon the examination of the available record, I find that in view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issue No,2 to the effect that whether the suit is barred by time. The learned trial Court did not give its findings on the issue of limitation and felt satisfied after observing that "the defendants have failed to show as to how the suit is time-barred". It is evident from para 22 of the judgment of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court did not give any findings on the issue of limitation. Surprisingly, the learned Additional District Judge, while dealing with the issue of limitation, has maintained the "finding" of the learned trial Court, whereas there were no "findings" by the learned Civil Judge.
6. Muhammad Essa died in the year 1910, mutation of inheritance (Exh.D.1), was sanctioned in favour of his four sons in the year 1911, the said property was acquired by LDA in the year 1945 and the award was announced in the same year, are some of the admitted facts between the parties. It is clear from the said facts that right to sue, even if accrued to the aggrieved persons, was in the year 1911 when mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of four sons of Muhammad Essa and Mst. Fatima Bibi, his daughter and Taliba Bibi, his wife, were excluded from inheritance. It is also admitted fact that Mst. Fatima, who died after twelve years of the mutation of inheritance, did not challenge the said mutation or claimed any inheritance of the property during her life time and the plaintiffs claiming to be her legal heirs, filed these two suits in the year 1976. The contention of the learned counsel that period will start from the date of the transfer of the exempted plots has no substance, as, to my mind, the right to sue survive to Mst. Fatima Bibi in the year 1910 and 1911. Under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, a suit for declaration can be filed within the period of six years from the date, when the right to sue accrues. The plaintiffs are claiming the inheritance from the estate of their mother, Mst. Fatima, but the fact remains that at the time of her c death the land, which was subsequently acquired and exempted plots were given to the four persons, did not stand in the name of Mst. Fatima Bibi. Admittedly, Mst. Fatima did not inherit any estate from her father and she never claimed any inheritance during her lifetime. If Mst. Fatima Bibi was not the owner of any land at the time of her death, the question of claiming inheritance from the estate of Mst. Fatima Bibi by the plaintiffs, does not arise under the circumstances. To my mind, the matter of inheritance of Muhammad Essa regarding the land stood closed with the attestation of mutation of inheritance (Exh.D.1), which was not challenged for almost sixty-five years and for the first time the said mutation was called in the question through the filing of the suits by the plaintiffs. I am of the view that both the Courts have wrongly decided issue No,2, as both the suits were clearly barred by time.
7. As noted above, as the two suits were barred by time, therefore, there was no need to give any findings on the rest of the issues, which findings have now become redundant.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petitions are allowed and D the impugned judgments and decrees, dated 13-6-1991 and 20-3-1989 passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside with no order as to costs. Consequently, two suits filed by Mst. Guishan Ara and Ch. Saeed Anwar alias Mehboob stand dismissed.