MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.--This revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of learned Civil Judge, Karak dated 12.12.2005 and of learned Additional District Judge- 1, Karak dated 20.11.2008, whereby both the learned subordinate courts dismissed the suit of the petitioners/ plaintiffs.
2. Succinct but necessary facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the plaintiffs, herein petitioners, filed a suit for declaration against the defendants, respondents herein, to the effect that mutation No. 9332 dated 01.02.1927 Mst. Lota widow of Fateh Khan in favour of one Mirza Ambar with respect to the suit property, fully described in the head note of the plaint, is wrong, baseless, fraudulent and result of misrepresentation on the ground that said Mst. Lota did not appear before the Revenue Officer and was misrepresented by producing another woman namely Mst.
Khoazmina. They further claimed that Mst. Lota was riwaji owner in the suit property on the basis of mutation No.8610 dated 20.05.1922, which is also illegal and against sharia and being a riwaji owner, not competent to transfer the same in any way. The petitioners also impugned the inheritance mutation of Mst. Lota bearing No. 28561 attested on 27.02.1975 vide which the legacy of Mst. Lota was devolved to Raza Khan son of Azam, cousin of the petitioner. According to petitioners/plaintiffs claim averred in the plaint that they are the legal heirs of one Mst. Sabardana, who was the daughter of Ganj and the said Ganj was the brother of Fateh Khan, whose widow was Mst. Lota. Both Fateh Khan and Ganj were the sons of Azeem Khan and Azeem was the brother of Shadi Khan whose son was Azam. Raza Khan and Gulla Khan they were the sons of Azam Khan. The crux of the matter is that as Fateh Khan has died issueless, therefore; his legacy should devolve upon the petitioners, being son of Mst. Sabardana.
3. On appearance, the respondents submitted three different written statements. On divergent of pleadings, the learned trial court framed eleven issues apart from relief.
4. Both the parties produced their evidence as they wished. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.12.2005, dismissed the suit of respondent/plaintiff.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Appellate Court, who after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and maintained the judgment and decree of the trial court vide its appellate judgment and decree dated 20.11.2008.
6. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees of the subordinate court, the petitioner assailed the same through instant revision petition.
7. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
8. The petitioners to prove their case produced patwari halqa, who submitted fard jamabandies for the year 1905-06, pedigree table and the several mutations, which are placed as Ex. P.W.1/1 to 1/11 respectively. Some other mutations bearing Nos. 840, 939 and 1233 were also exhibited in his statement. The ADK was examined as PW-2, who produced the copies of mutation No. 6116 dated 18.06.1918, impugned mutation Nos. 9332 and 28581 and another mutation No. 28561 which are placed as Ex. PW 2/2 and 2/3 respectively. These last two mutations Nos. 28581 and 28561 were again produced by the petitioners in their evidence. One Ahmad Gul ADK was recorded his statement as PW-3, who submitted pedigree table of 1903-04; along with copy of several mutations which are placed as Ex. PW-3/1 to 3/8 respectively. The impugned mutation No.9332 Ex.
PW2/2 reveals that it was got entered by Mst. Lota who has verified the same vide daily diary mentioned therein and at the time of its attestation, Mst. Khoazmina appeared and attested the same. The mutation contains pedigree table which shows Ganj as died issueless. According to the patwari halqa, the thumb impression, was not affixed by Mst. Lota on the impugned mutation but at the relevant time thumb impression by the vendor was not the requirement of the law. Perusal of the mutation bearing No. 6810 attested on 20.05.1924 shows that the inheritance of Fateh Khan has been devolved on his widow Mst. Lota. The above mentioned mutations somewhere shows that Ganj died issueless and elsewhere reflect him as a father of Mst. Sabardana but there are two other most important mutations bearing Nos. 6116 and 939 attested on 18.06.1918 and 07.07.1908 vide which Mst. Sabardana has been deprived as a heir of Ganj, her father due to second marriage.
The later mutation dated 7-7-1908 vide which the inheritance of Marwat son of Ganj has been devolved on Mst. Sabardana. The pedigree table shows Mst. Sabardana is the daughter of Mst.
Alucha. Looking at the above record, it has been transpired the plaintiffs have got no cause action for the reason that they have not challenged mutation No. 6116 dated 18.06.1918 which is fundamental one, because it was brought this mutation that Mst. Sabardana was deprived in the legacy of Ganj. Secondly the inheritance mutation No. 28561 dated 27.02.1975 of Mst. Lota has been attested to Raza Khan etc. Though it has been challenged but Raza Khan was not impleaded as a party in the present suit.
9. From the revenue record it cannot be clearly ascertained whether Mst. Sabardana was the legal heir of Ganj or not? Because as stated above, some of the mutations show that she is the daughter of Ganj,' while the other depicts that Ganj has been died issueless. The oral evidence of the plaintiffs, if we see the statement of witnesses of the petitioners, Sa'ad Ullah Khan appeared as PW-
5. The petitioner witness stated that the Sabardana was the daughter of Ganj and Mst. Khoazmina, was the sister of Sher Bahadur, was produced at the time of attestation of impugned mutation No. 9332, while PW-5 Sa'ad Ullah Khan lends no support to this contention of the plaintiffs. The report of the patwari halqa, reproduced in the said mutation shows that Mst. Lota entered the report of the sale in the property in khata Nos. 813 to 816 on 26.12.1926. Mst. Khoazmina admitted the sale at the time of attestation of mutation. It means that Mst. Khoazmina herself appeared and that she did not pose herself as Mst. Lota. Though the impugned mutation not beard the thumb impression of Mst. Lota but it is settled at the relevant time under the law The Punjab Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1912 (Pb. Act II of 1912) was in force D and signature or thumb impression of the buyer were not requirement under the law at that time. Mutation contain pedigree table which shows Mst. Khoazmina as the daughter of Raza Khan, cousin's son of Fateh Khan husband of Mst.
Lota, while Ganj has been shown as issueless: PW-5 Sa'ad Ullah Khan also does not buttress the other contention of the plaintiffs that Mst Sabardana was the daughter of Ganj. He categorically stated in cross-examination that Fateh Khan and Mst. Lota have died 107 years ago. Conversely the defendants produced Taj Muhammad patwari as DW-1. According to the record submitted by him there are houses and graveyards in the suit property. The other witness of the defendant namely Zaman Khan, Amal Khan, Zarman ud Din and Ghulam Mohy ud Din who appeared as DW-2 to 5 stated that though the plaintiffs are the sons of Mst. Sabardana but Mst. Sabardana was not the daughter of Ganj. The revenue record produced by the parties shows that a lot of inheritance, mortgage and exchange mutation have been attested in the disputed property out of which not a single one has been challenged in the instant case. The revenue record also transpired that the graveyard, houses, barrage, mosque are existing in the suit property. The record also show that there are so many houses, tube well and water tank in the suit property. On calculating the total area measuring 665 kanals, only fifty marlas remained vacant. So in the such like situation it is difficult for the Court what to be believed and what not, it is settled principles that the plaintiffs always duty bound to prove its claim through the strength of cogent and reliable evidence and no benefit could be given to the weakness of the other party. Perusal of evidence produced by the plaintiffs reveals that it is neither inspiring nor competent to prove their claim and no decree could be passed on such like weak type of evidence produced by the plaintiffs. The petitioners/ plaintiffs contended that the instant suit is in respect of inheritance and no limitation can hindered in the way of their claim as ,imitation could not run against the claimant in a suit of inheritance.
10. I am afraid and disagree with the learned counsel for the petitioners as the contention is misconception of law and facts because in the instant suit, the plaintiffs challenged the mutations of inheritance and sale attested prior to more than hundred years. This principle of law has been resolved in cases where even to claim inheritance the law of limitation will apply. The Apex Court of Pakistan, in the case titled Ahmad bin v. Muhammad Shafie and others reported in PLD 1971 SC 762 mutation of inheritance sanctioned in year 1953 was sought to be challenged in year 1962, the suit was held to be barred by time which was maintained by the Apex Court of Pakistan in the instant case. In other case titled Mst. Phaphan through L.Rs. And others v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others reported 2005 SCM R 1278 also involved a claim based on inheritance the mutations attested on 1959-60 was challenged in year 1983 the suit was dismissed as barred by time, which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case supra. In the like case titled Luqman and others v. Gul Muhammad reported in 1984 SCM R 63, mutation of inheritance sanctioned in 1923 and 1924 were challenged in 1978. Dismissal of the suit on the question of limitation was maintained by Apex Court of Pakistan. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others reported in 2007 SCM R 1446, wherein it has been held that:- "we may add that public interest require that there should be an end to litigation. The law of limitation provides an element of certainty in the conduct of human affair. Statute of limitation and prescription are, thus, statutes of peace and repose. In order to avoid coincidence of fact and right is rightly accepted as final after a certain number of years. Whoever wishes to dispute this presumption must do so, within the period; otherwise his rights if any will be forfeited as a penalty for his neglect. In other words the law of limitation is a law which is designed to impose quietus on legal dissensions and conflicts. It require that person must come to Court and take recourse to legal remedy within due diligence".
11. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled Laal Khan through L.Rs v. Muhammad Yousuf through L.Rs. Reported in PLD 2011 SC 567, on relying Muhammad Raza Khan v. Government of N. -W.F.P. And others reported in PLD 1997 SC 393, dismissed the suit filed OD 13.05.1970 challenging the inheritance mutation dated 13.12.1947. The above dictum of law is also supplemented in the recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Mst. Grana through Legal Heirs and others v. Sahib Kamala Bibi and others" reported in PLD 2014 SC 167, wherein the Apex Court of Pakistan held that"- "It appears that in a suit which involves some element of inheritance the courts are generally quick to declare that the law of limitation would not be attracted. It is not in all cases of inheritance that the question of limitation becomes irrelevant. Even in Ghulam Ali's case the, Court recognized that there could be the exceptional circumstances wherein a suit based on inheritance issue of limitation may become relevant".
12. Both the learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioners/ plaintiffs by properly appreciating the evidence available on record and applying the law on the subject correctly. I did not find any infirmity any misreading, non-reading in the impugned judgments which may warrants interference of this Court in the concurrent findings of facts as well law recorded by two courts below. In this respect, reliance is placed on Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v.
Muhammad Saddique PLD 2002 SC 293 and Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2010 SCMR 05.
13. This revision petition being without any substance, stands dismissed with no order as to cost.