This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration challenging an inheritance mutation (No. 571) dated July 9, 1927. The petitioners, as successors of Mst. Karam Jan, sought their share of inheritance from the estate of Kala Khan. While the trial and appellate courts decreed the suit, the High Court reversed these findings and dismissed the suit on the grounds of limitation and lack of locus standi. The core legal question was whether the successors could challenge a mutation that their predecessor-in-interest failed to contest during her lifetime. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that Mst. Karam Jan remained alive until 1975 without ever challenging the 1927 mutation. The Court held that where a predecessor-in-interest does not challenge a mutation during their lifetime, their heirs lack the locus standi to challenge it independently decades later. The principle established is that the failure of a predecessor to assert a right over a long period precludes subsequent claims by heirs, especially when no justification for the delay is provided.
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioners' suit for declaration impugning the mutation of inheritance of Kala Khan bearing No,571 dated 9-7-1927 and claiming their share of inheritance as successor of Mst. Karam Jan was decreed by the learned trial Court in terms of its judgment dated 27-6-2006, which was affirmed in appeal but the same has been reversed and suit dismissed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that the learned High Court has reversed the concurrent judgments and decrees without adverting to the issue that petitioners had a bona fide right to claim their share of inheritance of Mst. Karam Jan; that they have been non- suited merely on the ground of limitation; that petitioners could not be deprived of their share on this hyper technical point; that the learned Court also failed to appreciate that there are co- sharers in the property and therefore, the bar of limitation could not stand in their way. In support of the submissions made, learned counsel relied on Allah Wasaya v. Rahim Bakhsh (1991 SCM R 1369) and Jumma Khan v. Mst. Zenab Bibi (PLD 2002 SC 823).
3. Having heard petitioners' learned counsel at some length, we find that admittedly the impugned mutation of inheritance bearing No,571 dated 9-7-1927 was never challenged by Mst. Karam Jan; that she remained alive till 1975 and no reason whatsover is reflected either in the plaint or in the evidence led to indicate as to why she did not challenge the said mutation. It has never been the case of the petitioners that either they or their predecessor-in-interest were unaware of the said mutation. In the afore-referred circumstances, the judgment of the learned High Court is unexceptionable. So far as the precedent case-law to which reference has been made by petitioners' learned counsel is concerned, the same is distinguishable as in none of the judgments the question of locus standi was a moot point. In Abdul Haq v. Mst. Surraya Begum (2002 SCM R 1330), this Court inter alia was seized of a similar issue and while dismissing the petition, it observed as follows:-- "11. Atta Muhammad was deprived of right to inherit the property as a consequence of mutation in dispute but he did not challenge the same during his lifetime. The petitioners claimed the property through Atta Muhammad as his heirs who filed the suit as late in 1979 about nine years after the sanction of mutation which had already been given effect to in the word of rights. The petitioners, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge the mutation independently, for Atta Muhammad through whom they claimed inheritance himself had not challenged the same during his lifetime."
4. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in 1B this petition, which is dismissed and leave refused.