MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, J: By filing the instant civil revision, the petitioners have assailed the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by learned Civil Judge, Khanpur and learned Additional District Judge, Khanpur, dated 16.09.2003 and 29.11.2008 respectively, by which suit of contesting respondents No.1 to 4 (respondents) to the effect that they alongwith pro forma respondents No.5 & 6 were legal heirs of Ali Muhammad son of Muhammad Bakhsh deceased and were entitled to inherit his revenue estate in Mouza Mud Ilyas, Tehsil Khanpur, District Rahim Yar Khan stood decreed and mutation of inheritan ce No.85 dated 07.06.1938 (Exh.P1) sanctioned exclusively in favour of Allah Dawaya-petitioner No.1 was set aside.
2. Brief facts necessary for decision of the instant civil revision are that on death of Ali Muhammad son of Muhammad Bakhsh, his revenue estate measuring 87 Kanal 1 Marla situated at Mouza Mud Ilyas Khanpur, District Rahim Yar Khan was transferred through mutation of inheritance in favour of present petitioner No.1 and he vide Tamleek Mutation No.331 attested on 10.05.1987 Exh.D1 transferred this land to his sons remaining petitioners. Mst. Pathani Mai and legal heirs of Mst. Sharam Bibi-deceased respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs in year 1999 filed suit for declaration to the effect that they alongwith pro forma defendants No.5 & 6 were legal heirs of Ali Muhammad-deceased and entitled to inherit his revenue estate and impugned mutation of inheritance was against facts, law and ineffective upon their rights. The petitioners contested the suit claiming that the respondents/plaintiffs were not entitled to inherit revenue estate of All Muhammad- deceased. Present petitioner No.1 specifically denied his blood relation with Mst.Pathani and Sharam Bibi. The learned Civil Judge, framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, while deciding crucial issues No.1, 2 & 5 against the petitioners decreed the suit of the respondents. The present petitioners assailed the impugned judgment and decree before learned Additional District Judge, Khan Pur, who vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 dismissed the appeal. Thus the petitioners have filed the instant civil revision mainly on the grounds that the impugned judgments and decrees are against facts, law, result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and as such not sustainable.
3. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently maintained that paternity of Mst.Pathani and Sharam Bibi has been denied by the petitioners and respondents have failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish their claim to inherit revenue estate of Ali Muhammad-deceased and the Courts below have not correctly and legally appreciated the evidence on record.
4. Heard.
5. PW-1 Mst.Pathani has specifically stated that she was daughter of All Muhammad, and that Mst.Sharam Bibi and Allah Diwaya were legal heirs of Ali Muhammad-deceased. After death of her father, her brother (petitioner No.1) was looking after his revenue estate and used to give them produCe of land. Three years back on consultation of revenue record she came to know that she and her sister Sharam Bibi-deceased had been deprived of the revenue estate of their father. During cross examination she being illiterate `Pardanasheen' lady, due to slip of tongue made a bald statement that Yacioob Ahmad was father of Ali Muhammad (whereas actual parentage of Ali Muhammad is Muhammad Bakhsh). She specifically stated that present petitioner No.1 was her younger brother. She denied the suggestion that the petitioner No.1 was not her brother and he had never paid any produce to her. PW-2 Azeem Bakhsh deposed that Pathani, Mst.
Sharam Khatoon and Allah Diwaya are son and daughters of All Muhammad and as such are entitled to inherit revenue estate left by All Muhammad deceased. He deposed that Mst.
Pathani was his cousin and petitioner No.1 always admitted them (Mst. Pathani and Mst. Sharam Khatoon) his sisters and used to give them produce of the land. During cross examination he deposed that Shah Muhammad and Mian Naseer were brothers of Ali Muhammad. He categorically denied the suggestion that Mst. Sharam Khatoon and Mst. Pathani were not daughters of Ali Muhammad. PW-3 Hafiz Faqeer Ullah in his examination in chief supported the verison of respondents. He rejected the suggestion that Mst. Pathani and Sharam Khatoon were not daughters of Ali Muhammad.
6. In rebuttal present petitioner-Allah Diwaya as DW-1 stated that he was sole legal heir of Ali Muhammad, Pathani and Sharam were not daughters of Ali Muhammad. He further stated that he never gave share of produce to Mst.Pathani and Sharam Mai. During cross examination he deposed that mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in the years 1935-37 and his father died 2/3 years after sanction of mutation. (This fact hints that the petitioner is not even aware of the fact that mutation of inheritance is attested after death of a person and not in his life time). He deposed that Mst. Pathani is alive and residing in Mouza Mud Ilyas. He admitted that her father's name was Ali Muhammad but he had no knowledge that who was said Ali Muhammad (what was his parentage etc). He deposed that he had not seen father of Mst. Pathani and Sharam. He conceded that they were residing with Mian Naseer. This clearly indicates that these two ladies are family members/real sisters of the petitioner No.1 and he is concealing their relationship just to deprive them of the inheritance. DW-2 Muhamad Nawaz in his examination in chief stated that he had not seen Ali Muhammad in his life time. He admitted that Mian Naseer and Mian Shah Muhammad were brothers of Ali Muhammad and Ali Muhammad was father of Allah Diwaya-petitioner No.1. He admitted that Mian Naseer was the person with whom Pathani and Sharam were residing. The above referred evidence proves the claim of respondents that they are daughters of Ali Muhammad, and this fact has been denied by petitioners, without any valid and cogent basis. The petitioner No.1 /DW1 has admitted that these ladies were residing in the house of his paternal uncle but still he has not given straight forward and true version about their correct parentage and relationship with him and his version in this regard is fishy fishy and cannot be accepted as gospel truth to adversely effect and jeopardize the legal rights of respondents/plaintiffs. The learned Courts below have rightly concluded that at the time of birth and marriages of respondents, there was no proper mechanism for maintenance of birth registers, Nikah Registers and for that very reason, the respondents/plaintiffs were handicapped to produce such documents before the Court.
7. The plea of petitioners that Mst. Sharam Bibi in her life time has not demanded inheritance of Ali Muhammad and thus it validly constitutes surrender of right and estoppel. But this plea of surrender and estoppel is not established from record, rather it stood proved that petitioner No.1 used to give produce of the land to these ladies. In this regard reliance is placed on '2004 YLR 1201 Lahore 'Muhammad Ali Sabtain and 4 others Versus Mst. Shahjahan Bibi and 9 others' and 2005 SCMR 1447 'Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others Versus Allah Bachaya and 18 others'. In the latter precedent, it has been laid down that right of inheritance of a female recognized in "Shariah" cannot be denied on the basis of an oral assertion of surrender in favour of a male member of family and in any case, there is no concept of estoppel to deprive a person of his right in the inheritance in Islam. In PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1 `Ghulam Ali and 2 others Versus Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi', it has been laid down that mere omission to pay profit does not constitute ouster. The law does not penalise a co-owner who relies on the honesty of his co-sharer and, therefore, ordinarily the mere fact that he does not take the trouble to assert his rights as he may be entitled to, would not justify an inference of ouster.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further maintained that the limitation to claim inheritance was six years and the suit was instituted in year 1999 after more than 60 years and as such the suit was time barred.
Reliance has been placed on 2007 SCMR 1446 Atta Muhammad Versus Maula Bakhsh and others', whereas learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the latest precedent reported as 2014 MLD 1706 Khaliq Dad Versus Ahmad Nawaz' wherein it has been laid down that wrong entry made in record of rights after every four years in jamabandi gives a fresh cause of action to plaintiff on every denial and suit can not be termed as time barred. In 2015 SCMR 869 `Mahmood Shah Versus Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others', it has been held that possession of one co-heir would be deemed to be on behalf of even those who were out of it, and preparation of every new record of rights, in their case would confer on them a fresh cause of action and no length of time would culminate in extinguishment of their proprietary/possessory rights. Similar view was taken in 2014 SCMR 806 'Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Works and others Versus Syed Muhammad Ismail Shah and others'. In 2007 SCMR 635 Mst. Suban Versus Allah Ditta and others', it has been held that limitation starts running not from the time of death of predecessor-in- interest nor even from the date of mutation but from the date when right of any such co sharers/co-inheritors in such property was denied. In PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1 referred supra, it has been laid down that wrong mutation confers no right in property as revenue record is maintained only for purposes of ensuring realization of land revenue, co-sharers/co-owners are not obliged to file a suit to seek a declaration to the effect that a mutation had wrongly been sanctioned, suit filed, due to denial of rights of the co-sharer, for declaration would be within time and the Revenue Authorities on success of such suit would be required by law to correct the wrong mutation. It was also observed by Apex Supreme Court in this case law, that as soon as an owner dies, succession to his property opens and no state intervention needed for the passing of the title immediately to the heirs. Thus it is obvious that a Muslim's estate legally and juristically vests immediately on his death in his or her heirs and their rights respectively come into separate existence forthwith. Notwithstanding that whether legal heirs like it, want it, abhor it or shun it. It is the public policy of Islamic Law. It is only when the property has thus vested in the heir after the succession opens, that he or she can alienate it in a lawful manner. In this precedent while examining the scope of rights of inheritance of females, it has been observed that such rights are so wide and their thrust so strong that it is the duty of the Courts to protect and enforce them. Thus the learned Courts below have rightly concluded that in view of the facts, circumstances of the case aid evidence on record, the suit of the respondents is not hit by law of limitation.
9. In view of above discussion, to my view the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and decreed the suit of contesting respondents in their favour and other pro forma respondents holding them legal heirs of Ali Muhammad son of Muhammad Baldish and that they alongwith petitioner No.1 are entitled to inherit his revenue estate and impugned mutation of inheritance is ineffective upon their rights. The impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence and call for no interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the instant civil revision being devoid any merits is dismissed.