AMIN-LID-DIN KHAN, J.--- This Civil revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Bahawalpur dated 26.7.1994 decreeing suit filed by the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ghulam Qadir died in the year 1917, leaving behind three sons namely Muhammad Bux, Ahmed Bux, Fazal Hussain and one daughter Begum Mai. According to the petitioners the parties entered into family settlement on 17.3.1972 and Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1 were executed between the parties. Admittedly, Mst Begum Mai was alive at that time and was not a party to these documents. There were no signatures or thumb impression of Mst. Begum Mai on these documents. On the basis of this family settlement, three sons kept the immoveable property of their father in shape of houses mentioned in the plaint and according to them it was agreed that each brother will give Rs. 500/- to Mst.
Begum Mai.
3. Mst. Begum Mai died on 22.6.1988 and her legal heirs filed suit for declaration that they being the legal heirs of Mst. Begum Mai are entitled to her share which was inherited to their mother from her father. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.7.1994. However the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, hence this Civil revision. The respondents also filed cross objection on the point which were decided against. Them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit filed by the respondents was time barred; that Mst. Begum Mai never claimed her share in the suit property in her life time. After family settlement on 17.3.1972 they become exclusive owner .Of the suit property, and there is no share of Mst. Begum Mai.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents contends that both the Courts below have rightly decreed their suit.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. I have noticed that Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1 though have not been proved in accordance with law and if these documents be considered as proved, even then these documents do not create any right or title in favour of the petitioners do not create any right or title in favour of the petitioners.
Admittedly, Mst. Begum Mai was alive at that time when she was not party of these documents.
Muhammad Hanif etc who signed the said document was admittedly not owner of the property mentioned in this document at that time and they were also not the attorney of Mst. Begum Mai. If the legal value of these documents is adjudged even the documents create no right in favour of petitioners. Under the law immovable property having value more than Rs.100/- cannot be transferred without duly registration of an instrument under section 17 of the Registration Act.
Admittedly, there is no such document in favour of the petitioners. Through family settlement the immovable property can be settled between the parties but no one can transfer his share of property in favour of another share holder permanently. Through these documents Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1 the petitioners want that share of Mst. Begum Mai in immoveable property left by Ghulam Qadir will be deemed to have been transferred through family Settlement in their favour. Ex.P.1 and D-1 are not admissible under the law, when this legal position is clear, there is no need to go into further factual controversy and to discuss all the evidence available on the record. The objection of the adverse possession of the petitioners is no more available under the law as section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 has been omitted by Act II of 1995. However it is settled law that possession of each co-sharer is deemed to be possession of every co-sharer. Admittedly, when parties to the suit are legal heirs of Ghulam Qadir, therefore, there is no question of limitation in filing the suit in the light of judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Ghulam Ali and 2 others v, Mst.
Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1). Learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading and jurisdictional defect in the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
Civil revision .