' SYED MUSADIQ HUSSAIN GILLANI, J.--- Mst. Najma Bibi, the predecessor of respondents, instituted a suit against the petitioners for claiming declaration to the effect that being daughter of Abdul Rehman, she was owner in possession to the extent of her Sharee share in the suit-land measuring 62 Kanals, 15 Marlas, fully described in the heading of the plaint, situate in Village Pishtakhara, Tehsil and District Peshawar, and entries in the Revenue Record qua the suit-land in favour of the petitioners were wrong, illegal, collusive, and based on fraud, as such ineffective upon her rights.
She also claimed permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners from claiming exclusive ownership of the suit-land, and in the alternative for possession..
2. According to Mst. Najma Bibi, Abdul Rehman, predecessor of the parties, was owner in possession of the suit-land who died in the year 1920, and was survived by Mst. Mayrum Bibi, widow, Mst. Najma, daughter and Dost Muhammad Khan son, Mst. Maryam Bibi died in 1964, and her legacy devolved on her daughter Mst. Najma Bibi and Dost Muhammad Khan son, to the extent of 1/3rd share and 2/3rd share, respectively. The petitioners being legal heirs of Dost Muhammad Khan, with the collusion of Revenue staff, got the suit land transferred in their names. Mst. Najma Bibi, being Pardanasheen lady, had no knowledge of the attestation of the mutation because Dost Muhammad Khan used to give her the share of the produce. On his death, the petitioners also kept on giving her the said share of produce but later on the same was stopped. Hence, the suit.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners on various legal as well as factual grounds, and the following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties by the learned Civil Judge, Peshawar:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to use?
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(4) Whether the suit is dismissed under Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C.?
(5) Whether defendants are entitled to special cost under section 35-A C.P.C.?
(6) Whether plaintiff herself filed the instant suit?
(7) Whether the suit is incompetent in its present form?
(8) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(9) Whether after the death of Abdul Rehman, Predecessor of defendant Dost Muhammad devolved the legacy of Abdul Rehman, and plaintiffs or mother of the plaintiffs have got no share in the property left by Abdul Rehman?
(10) Whether predecessor of defendant Dost Muhammad with the connivance of Revenue officials attested the mutation in his favour?
(11) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(12) Relief.
4. The evidence of the parties, which they wished to adduce, was duly recorded, and it was held that Mst. Najma Bibi, the predecessor of respondents, being daughter of Abdul Rehman was entitled to inherit her share in the legacy of her father, and Dost Muhammad Khan and his successors, could not claim adverse possession against her. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on 31-1-2005.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, petitioners, filed an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge-IX, Peshawar, finding no merits in the appeal, dismissed the same on 17- 12-2005, by maintaining the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
6. Having felt aggrieved, the petitioners filed the instant revision petition to this Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners very briefly argued on one point, and stated that Abdul Rehman had died in 1920, and his son Dost Muhammad, predecessor of the petitioners, according to the customs, had succeeded to his legacy to the exclusion of Mst. Najma Daughter of Abdul Rehman and his rights were protected under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. He further stated that right from the death of Abdul Rehman, Dost Muhammad Khan, remained in exclusive possession of the suit-land, and thereafter the petitioners, are in possession, being owners on the basis of long standing entries in the revenue record in their favour. The suit was, therefore, time-barred. He placed reliance on PLD 1974 SC 207 (B).
8. On the other hand, learned 'counsel for the respondents supported the impugned findings of the Courts below, and stated that Mst. Najma Bibi, predecessor of respondents, was unlawfully deprived of her share in the legacy of her father. She was not shown in existence, and as such she was not the customary co-sharer. He stated that the contest was between the brother and sister, and brother was not entitled to claim adverse possession. In support of arguments, he relied upon 2005 SCM R 1217, PLD 2006 SC 322, PLD 1998 SC 1512, PLD 1990 SC 1, 1998 SCM R 996 and 2006 SCM R 884.
9. Admittedly, Abdul Rehman, the predecessor of the parties, was owner of the suit-land, who was survived by a widow, son and daughter. The son got the legacy of his father transferred in his name to the exclusion of his mother and sister. The latter two were not shown in existence, meaning thereby, that he inherited the suit-land under Shariat and not under the customs. Mst. Najma Bibi being daughter was also entitled to inherit her due sharee share in the legacy of her mother and father. She was deprived of her due share. It is settled that no limitation runs against co-sharer to enforce his rights under the inheritance. Mst. Najma Bibi was, therefore, not required to institute the suit within six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
The concurrence findings on facts and law, in the absence of any jurisdictional error, cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.