' Through this Revision Petition, the petitioners assailed the concurrent judgments and decrees of learned Civil Judge-IX, Bannu dated 31.03.2010 and of Additional District Judge-I, Bannu dated 16.04.2011 vide which the former decreed the suit of respondents/plaintiffs, while the latter upheld the judgment and decree of trial Court.
2. Succinct but necessary facts giving rise to the instant Revision Petition are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against petitioners/ defendants for declaration/possession through partition with permanent injunction to the effect that plaintiffs as well as defendants are the legal heirs of Malik Dam Nawaz Khan, who was died on 03.02.1977. The plaintiffs have 59/160 while defendants 101/160 share in the legacy of their predecessor in interest. The property i,e. House No. 101/A, House No. 197/A situated at Bannu City and lease property Municipal committee Land and Municipal committee Bus stand Bannu city, is joint ownership of the parties due to which there is always an apprehension of breach of peace between them. The respondents/ plaintiffs prayed for declaration/ possession through partition with permanent injunction.
3. Defendants were summoned, who appeared and resisted the suit by' submitting written statement, raised legal as well as factual grounds therein. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed Nine issues apart from the relief.
4. Both the parties produced their evidence as they wished. On conclusion of trial and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiffs vide its judgment and decree dated 31.03.2010.
5. Appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16.4.2011.
6. Dissatisfied by the concurrent judgment and decree of both the learned subordinate Courts, the petitioners/defendants have challenged the same through this Revision Petition.
7. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
8. The main controversy between the parties is that the respondents/plaintiffs are not the legal heirs' of Late Malik Dam Nawaz Khan, hence, they are not entitled to his legacy. Perusal of the record as well as documentary evidence reveals that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of late Malik Dam Nawaz Khan, who was predecessor in interest of the parties. In a separate suit No. 62/1 instituted on 22.12.2004 filed by the same respondents regarding the share of pension of late Malik Dam Nawaz Khan, has also been decreed and C.A No. 93-B of 2011 decided by this Court, vide the judgment of the even date, 13.05.2014, the same controversy has been resolved and through cogent and reliable documentary as well as oral evidence, it has been declared that respondents as well as petitioners are the legal heirs of late Malik Dam Nawaz Khan. The documentary evidence produced in the instant case also not rebutted by the petitioners. In view of above, it is also held in the instant case that the respondents are the legal heirs of late Malik Dam Nawaz Khan and are entitled to the extent of their respective shares in his legacy. The plea that the petitioners/defendants are the only legal heirs of late Dam Nawaz Khan is set at naught. The learned both the Courts below have rightly decided this issue in favour of respondents/plaintiff.
9. The next pivotal question raised by learned counsel for petitioners, to be resolved is that: "Whether suit of plaintiffs/respondents' is time barred?
' Undisputedly, it is a dispute falling within the domain of Islamic Law. Inheritance opens, the moment, the propositus breathes his last. There is no need of formal documentation for devolving of inheritance to legal heirs, as their shares have been ordained in the Holy Quran in specific terms.
No worldly law can over-run the basic commandments of Quranic text, nor the wrong entry of mutation in favour of some heirs can over-weigh, the stipulation of those commandments. Entries of the revenue record are made for fiscal purpose. Hence, the suit of respondents is within time and they have rightly claimed their due share 59/160 in the legacy which is to be separated for which the respondents were entitled.
10. It is well settled principle of law that no limitation would run in the matters of inheritance. Rather legal heirs on the death of propositus, becomes co-sharers in the property and possession of one coheir/co-sharer is deemed to be held on behalf of all the co-heirs/cosharers. In view of this legal proposition, limitation would not be accounted against the petitioner. In this respect reliance be placed on L. Case "Mst. Suban Vs Allah Ditta and others (2007 SCM R 635), wherein it was held that: "It is a proposition too well-established by now that as soon as someone who owns some property, dies, the succession to his property opens and the property gets automatically and immediately vested in the heirs and the said vesting was not dependent upon any intervention or any act on the par of the Revenue Authorities or any other State agencies. It is also an established proposition that a mutation did not confer on anyone any right in any property as the Revenue Record was maintained only for realization of land revenue and did not, by itself confer any title on any one. It may also be added that efflux of time did not extinguish any rights inheritance because on the death of an owner of property; all the co-inheritors, immediately and automatically, became co- sharers in the property and as has been mentioned above, limitation against them would start running not from the time of the death of their predecessor-in-interest nor even from the date of mutation, if there be any, but from the date when the right of any such-co-sharers/ co inheritors in such land was denied by someone."
' I further fortify my this view by this principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in case titled "Ghulam Ali and 2 others Vs Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi" (PLD 1990 SC 1), "Shahro and others Vs Mst. Fatima and others" (PLD 1998 SC 1512) and "Muhammad Rafiq and others Vs Muhammad Ali and others" (2004 SCM R 704).
11. Both the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence in its true prospective and decreed the suit of respondents/plaintiffs in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments rendered by both the subordinate Courts, which may warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
12. Further the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited in which the Court cannot set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction nor it can upset the same even if on appreciation of evidence a different view can be formed unless these findings are shown patently illegal, without jurisdiction or the result of bare misreading and non-reading of material evidence, based on conjectural presumptions or erroneous assumption. Reference, in this regard can be made to case titled, "Haji Muhammad Saleem Vs Khuda Bakhsh" (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 315).
13. For the reasons discussed above, the instant petition being merit-less is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.