' RAUF AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- The appellant has assailed the vires of the order dated 10-1-2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby a stay petition filed by the petitioner/appellant in a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction was partly dismissed to the extent of disputed agricultural land. The plaintiff/appellant had challenged the genuineness of Mutation No,1140 dated 30-6-2003, alleging that the same is illegal, void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff/appellant and defendants Nos.2 to 4. It was stated that Muhammad Khan, father of the parties was owner of House No,969-B Faisal Town, Lahore and agricultural land measuring 163 Kanals, 19 Marlas fully described in para No,1 of the plaint. He died on 16-5-2003. The Mutation No,1139 of inheritance in respect of agricultural land was attested in favour of parties on 30-6-2003.
It is alleged that the respondent No,1 with the help of the husband of respondent No,2, obtained the signatures and thumb-impressions of the plaintiff and respondents Nos.2 to 4 on the pretext that the same were required for attestation of mutation of inheritance and then got attested disputed gift deed on the same day and thus has deprived the petitioner and other sisters of their here ditory rights. A decree for partition, declaration and permanent injunction was prayed for.
2. The appellant/plaintiff had moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Praying therein on the basis of C above mentioned averments that the respondent No,1 be restrained from interfering in joint possession and alienating the disputed property in any manner till final decision of the suit. The learned. Civil Judge vide impugned order accepted the stay application to the extent of disputed house but declined to grant injunction in respect of agricultural land by holding that a suit for partition in respect of agricultural land was not maintainable in the civil Court. The appellant has assailed the impugned order to the extent of refusal to grant of injunction in respect of agricultural land.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that 'the plaintiff/appellant and defendants Nos.2 to 4 are real daughters of the deeceased and real sisters of respondent/defendant No,1, who had managed attestation of forged mutation along with mutation of inheritance by obtaining their signatures/thumb-impressions on the pretext that the same were required for attestation of mutation of inheritance. Learned counsel' for the appellant has vehemently argued that attestation of disputed mutation on the basis of alleged verbal gift along with attestation of mutation of inheritance by itself shows that it was result of fraud and was not entered into with free consent and as such has no value in the eyes of law. In support of contentions raised reliance is placed on PLD 1990 SC 1. It is also contended that as the question of title is involved in the matter so the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition of agricultural land along with the residential property.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents Nos.1 and 2, has contended that disputed mutation was attested in accordance with law and as such the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application to the extent of agricultural land. It is also urged that suit to this extent was not maintainable in civil Court at Lahore for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is, however, contended that the defendant/respondent No,1 has no objection if the injunction is granted only to the extent of 1/6th shire of the petitioner.
5. Admittedly, Mutations Nos.1139 and 1140 dated 26-6-2003 were, attested on the same day so the contention of appellant that her signatures were, obtained on the pretext that the same were required for attestation of mutation of inheritance prima facie, appears to be correct. She is admittedly the daughter of deceased Ch. Muhammad Khan and sister of defendants/respondents.
Unfortunately in our agriculturalist tribes the unwanted practice to deprive the daughters of inheritance has yet not to an end. At this stage it cannot be accepted that mutation was come got attested with free consent and without fraud. The petitioner has good prima facie case, balance of convenience also lies in her favour and if she is deprived of her right and if the land is alienated during the pendency of suit she may suffer an irreparable loss as complication may arise in consequence thereof. The learned trial Court held that the suit for partition in respect of agricultural land is not maintainable. This view is erroneous as under section 172(2)(xviii) of the Land Revenue Act, H 1967 a suit for partition where the question of title is involved as in the present one, is maintainable in the civil Court. The contention that the disputed property is situated in District Sialkot, so the civil Court at Lahore lacks jurisdiction is also devoid of force because one of the properties is situated at Lahore and in view of section 17, C.P.C., the civil Court at Lahore has a jurisdiction to hear the suit. The contention of respondent No,1 that the injunction at the most be granted only to the extent of 1/6th share of the petitioner has no force because the mutation of inheritance is challenged and a decree for partition is prayed for. The respondent No,1 nevertheless has the right to alienate his undisputed 1/3rd undivided share in the disputed property without alienating the specific number.
6. For the reasons supra, the appeal is partly accepted. The defendant/respondent No,1 is directed not to alienate 2/3rd share of the disputed land till disposal of the suit, Nevertheless he can sell his undivided 1/3rd share of disputed property. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.