1. ' RAFIULLAH SULTAN!, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Kotli dated 11-3-2004, whereby the judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge, Kotli dated 18-7-2002 was maintained.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have instituted a suit for declaration pertaining to property Khewat NO,28, Khata Nos.127 to 139, total measuring 123 Kanals and 19 Marlas, situated at village Qamroti Tehsil Kotli before Senior Civil Judge, Kotli on 24-1-1995. It was alleged in the plaint that the respondents are entitled to one half share of the estate left by Jhanda their ancestor. It was alleged that there were four sons of Jhanda namely Faqir, Fateh, Bagh and Raju. Fateh was died issueless in Dogra Regime and Raju was migrated into Occupied Poonch in Dogra Regime.
3. Faqir and Bagh were the remaining sons of Jhanda and they were entitled to estate left by him.
4. Plaintiffs and defendants are their heirs, It was claimed that entries in the revenue record ineffective and inoperative against their rights. A decree for possession and permanent injunction was also sought for. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of respondents and same was maintained by First Appellate Court. Hence this appeal.
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellants argued that both the courts below have ignored the documentary evidence and wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. He further argued that the suit by respondents is hopelessly time barred. He also argued that revenue record got presumption of truth until it is rebutted. He further argued that entries in revenue record have been recorded from since 1962 Bikrami and Faqir has relinquished the property due to this reason Bagh was sole owner of the property. He contended that mutation NO,27 was sanctioned in favour of Bagh and that mutation was incorporated in Jamabandi up to now. He further argued that no appeal was lodged against the Mutation NO,27. He also contended that Mutation NO,27 is old document which carries presumption of truth. He cited following case-laws in his favour:-- PLD 1971 SC 376, 2001 MLD 212, 2003 CLC 456, 2005 MLD-153 caption (c), PLD 1983 SC (AJK) 25 and PLD 1984 SC 208.
6. ' The learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the appeal has been filed after delay of 103 days which is hopelessly time barred and liable to be dismissed. He further argued that entry of revenue record can be challenged at any time. No limitation is fixed for challenging entries of revenue record. He also argued that both the courts below have committed no illegality in decreeing the suit in of the respondents. He further contended that concurrent findings of lower courts on question of fact cannot be disturbed. He argued that Faqir has not migrated. He cited case law in his favour 199 YLR 1123. Lastly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. ' First of all I would like to meet the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal is time barred and has been lodged after 103 days. The case is decided by District Judge, Kotli on 11-3-2004 and application to get the copy of the judgment and decree was moved on 17-3-2004 and it was delivered to appellants on 6-4-2004. The time is consumed for preparation of copy of judgment and decree is 20 days. The appeal was filed before this Court on 22-6-2004. According to section 12(2) of Limitation Act, the time consumed in preparation of copy should be excluded. The party is entitled as of right to exclude the period spent in obtaining copies.
9. Due to this reason the appeal filed before this Court on 22-6-2004 is within time.
10. ' The next point which I want to meet that both the courts below ignored the documentary evidence which is on the file. It is admitted that the appellants are in possession of suit land and a Mutation NO,27 was sanctioned in favour of Bagh Hussain. The mutation mentioned above has not been challenged in pleadings and nor the witnesses of respondents namely Said Muhammad, Muhammad Khan, Khushi Muhammad, Faqir Muhammad and Feroz and all these witnesses even Sher Muhammad one of the plaintiffs did not say any single word about Mutation NO,27. Either it was sanctioned or not or it carries presumption of truth or not? The mutation is on the file as Exh.D.A. Which was sanctioned in 1961 Bikarmi. The document was relied upon was proved in evidence and is part of evidence. All the witnesses deposed in their statements recorded before the trial court that the land was partitioned between Bagh Hussain and Faqir Hussain. Faqir Hussain was in possession of Shamlat land due to private partition and Bagh Hussain was in possession of inherited land. Evidence could not be led beyond the pleadings and the parties cannot go beyond their pleadings. I get support on this point from case law titled Raja Muhammad Saeed Khan B v.
11. Sardar Khanizaman reported in 2005 SCR 271 caption (a). The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and it is also held by the courts below that mutation does not convey title. Mutation NO,27 is sanctioned according to law and proved in evidence and entries about this mutation are incorporated in Jamabandis. It is principle of law that the entries recorded in Jamabandi carry statutory presumption of truth. Jamabandis prepared from 1962 Bikrami till institution of the suit are not rebutted by the respondents therefore they got presumption of truth.
12. ' Another point which is involved in this case that father and grandfather of the respondents/plaintiffs did not file suit against forefather of the appellants and neither they claimed their share, if it was, and nor they challenged the entries of revenue record that their names have been deleted from the column of ownership, due to this reason plaintiffs/respondents have no cause of action. This view gets support from 1999 YLR 1253=1999 SCR 439-440 caption (d).
(d) Cause of action-- "-Right to sue accrued to father of appellants and not to present appellant---Since he exhausted his remedies---No cause of action accrued to appellants after his death."
13. ' I am not agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no limitation to challenge the entry of revenue record. According to Article 120 of Limitation Act, the limitation is six years, This view gets support from 1992 CLC 382. Cap.(b).
14. It was also held in 2001 MLD 212=2000 SCR 328 caption (b):---
(b) Suit --- "---Limitation---Mutation was sanctioned in 1956---Suit filed in 1991 after 35 years---Held: Suit barred by limitation."
15. ' Both the courts below have ignored the question of limitation. According to section 3 of Limitation Act, court is bound to reject the plaint barred by time even if the point of limitation has not been pleaded in the pleadings. But in this case, the plea of limitation is specifically pleaded and point of issue is also framed. The respondents filed the suit in 1995, after the period of more than 60 years, which is barred by time. Due to this reason the suit brought by the respondents/plaintiffs beyond the period of six years was barred by law of limitation and principle that there is no limitation in inheritance cases is not applicable on this case because it is suit of declaration for correction of entries, of revenue record.
16. ' For the reasons listed above, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the appeal of the appellants is accepted.