ALI AKBAR OURESHI, J. --- The petitioners being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2016, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, have filed this revision petition, whereby suit filed by respondent Necessary facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent No, 1/Mst. Kaniz Fatima filed a suit for Declaration alongwith Possession against the petitoners/defendants (real brothers) on the ground, that the predecessor of the parties to the case namely Deewan died leaving behind the suit land measuring 4 kanals, 8 marlas and one daughter/Mst. Kaniz Fatima and three sons namely Muhammad Ghani, Muhammad Shafee and Muhammad Siddique to mourn his death; that respondent No 1 (Mst. Kaniz Fatima) when intended to sale her share out of the legacy left by her father. she approached- to the patwari 'circle in the year 2006 and it came into her knowledge, that the petitioners/defendants have .succeeded to enter the inheritance mutation in their names with the connivance of the revenue staff by excluding respondent No, 1 from the list of legal heirs of deceased Deewan. Further contended, that in order to corporate her name in the revenue record, she filed an application but the application of the respondent was dismissed on the behest of the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No 1 filed a suit for Declaration alongwith Possession which was contested by the petitioners through written statement. The learned Trial Court after farming the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties dismissed' the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2013, against which an appeal was filed, which was allowed and the suit of respondent No 1 was decreed. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the 'preliminary stage argued' the case at length and submitted, that the predecessor of the petitioners and respondent No 1 was died before the creation of Pakistan and at that time there was no Custom to give anything from inheritance to the daughters. Also argued, that the suit filed by respondent No 1 is otherwise barred by time and lastly submitted, that the property in question has already been disposed of in different hands therefore, if any decree is passed in favour of respondent No, 1, that would not serve the purpose.
4. Heard.
5. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the record as well as the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were perused. It is proved on record and not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments, that respondent No: 1 is the real daughter of Deewan deceased and sister of the petitioners, therefore, while entering the inheritance mutation after the death of the predecessor of the parties, the name of the respondent being one of the legal heir should have been mentioned alongwith the petitioners, thus it is held that the inheritance mutation entered in the revenue record excluding the name of the respondent was illegal, unlawful being product of fraud and amounts to deprive the respondent from her right of inheritance, secured and guaranteed by the Allah Almighty. The respondent No, 1 in any case, being the daughter of Deewan, is entitled to get her inheritance from the legacy of deceased Deewan and there is no reason to deprive her. Reliance is placed on "Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi" (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners repeatedly argued, that the respondent has challenged the inheritance mutation entered in the name of the petitioners after the period of more than 30 years, which is hopelessly barred by time and the learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. It is well- established proposition of law, that the heir of any deceased becomes owner to the extent of his/her share by operation of law, the moment the predecessor dies and no . limitation runs against the claim of inheritance. Reliance is placed on "Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others" (2015 SCM R 869). The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-- "7.The first argument questioning the judgments of the fora below as well as High Court is that the suit being hopelessly time-barred is liable to be dismissed. This argument would have been viable otherwise but not in a case where co-heirs become co-owners in the property left by their propositus on his demise. Their succession to the property of their propositus becomes a fait accompli immediately after his demise. It, thus, does not need to intervention of any of the functionaries of the Revenue Department and remains as such irrespective of what Patwafi Girdawar and Revenue Officer enter in the mutation sanctioned in this behalf. Since possession of one coheir or any number of them would be deemed to be on behalf of even those who are out of it, preparation of every new record-of-rights, in their case, would confer on them afresh cause of action."
7. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment supra it can safely be concluded and held, that the suit filed by respondent- No, 1 to get her share from the legacy of deceased Deewan is well within time.
8. As regard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the Rawaj, the petitioners in this regard could not bring any evidence on record. This proposition has already been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the landmark judgment cited as "Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi" (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed, that the women, who are weaker segment of the society, should not be deprived from their right of inheritance in the name of customs or by emotionally exploiting them The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-- "As is discussed in the case of Haji Nizam (approved in Muhammad Bashir's case) which was also a case of clash of Islamic principles against those of other systems-a widowed daughter-in-law, seeking maintenance for her minor child against the grandfather it is the duty of the Courts within the permissible fields, as specified therein, to enforce Islamic law and principles. This case also required similar, if not better, treatment. The scope of rights of inheritance of females (daughter in this case) is so wide and their thrust so strong that it is the duty of the Courts to protect and enforce them, even if the legislative, action for this purpose of protection in accordance with Islamic Jurisprudence, is yet to take its own time.
In the rural areas where 80% of the female population resides, the inheritance rights of the females are not as protected and enforced, as Islam requires. Cases similar to this do come up even to Supreme Court. In a very large majority of them the Courts act rightly and follow the correct rules.
But it is a wide guess as to how many females take the courage of initiation or continuing the legal battle with their close one in matters of inheritance, when they are being deprived. The percentage is very low indeed. Neither the Courts nor the law as at present it stands interpreted, are to be blamed. The social organizations including those in the legal field are yet to show up in the rural area. They are mostly managed by Urban volunteers. When will they be able to move out of mostly managed by Urban volunteers. When will they be able to move out of sophisticated methods of American Speech/seminar system and all that goes with it, in the enlightened urban society? It is a pity that while an ubranised brother, who is labourer in a neighbouring Mill, has the protection of such mass of Labour Laws; which sometimes even Courts find it difficult properly to count-right from the definition of 'rights', upto the enforcement even in homes, through 'Social Security' Laws, with web of network of 'Inspectorates' etc. who are suppose) to be helping him at every step, his unfortunate sister, who is deprived of her most valuable rights of inheritance even today by her own kith and kin--sometimes by the urbanized brother himself, is not even cognizant of all this. She is not being educated enough about her rights. Nearly four decades have passed. A new set up is needed in this behalf. Social Organizations run by women have not succeeded in rural field. They may continue for the urban areas where their utility might also be improved and upgraded. At the same time they need to be equipped with more vigorous training in the field of Islamic learning and teachings. They should provide the bulk of research in Islamic Law and principles dealing with women. It is not the reinterpretation alone which is the need of the day but a genuine effort by them for the reconstruction of the Islamic concepts in this field. It cannot be achieved by the use of alien manner or method alone."
9. It is already settled proposition of law, that if anyone . deprived the sisters from the right of inheritance, they will have to prove through unimpeachable evidence, the reason/ground on the basis of which the sisters have been deprived from their inheritance. In this case the stance of the petitioners to deprive their sisters from the right of inheritance is vague and ambiguous; and the petitioners have been failed to bring anything on record in support of their stance.
10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already disposed of or alienated the suit land to different persons. As per record, the alleged subsequent purchasers were made party in the suit, who, while contesting the suit, claimed themselves the bona fide purchaser without notice for consideration. The alleged subsequent purchasers, as evident from the record; could not bring anything on record through cogent evidence, that before purchasing the land, the precautionary measures as provided by law were taken and they purchased the property in question in good faith and in accordance with law. Thus in these circumstances, it can conveniently be held, that the alleged subsequent purchasers remained unsuccessful to prove their stance of bona fide purchaser. In 'these circumstances, all the sale ransactions/alienations or mutations made by the petitioners of the suit land in favour of the subsequent purchasers are sham, thus declared illegal, unlawful and having no legal effect qua the rights of the respondents.
Reliance is placed on "Mst. Noor-un-and another v. Ghulam Sarwar and 6 others" (1994 SCME 2087) and "Muhammad lqbal through LRs, v. Mehmood Hassan Wand others" (2016 M LD 1243).
11. Even otherwise, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, that the findings of the learned Appellate Court should be given weightage. Reliance is placed on "Muhammad Hafeez and another v. District Judge, Karachi East and others" (2008 SCM R 398). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-- "It is well-settled that in the event of conflict of judgments finding of Appellate Court are to be preferred and respected unless it is shown from the record that such findings are not supported by evidence; that the conclusions drawn are against the material on record that the judgment of the Appellate Court suffers from misreading or non-reading of evidence or that the reasons recorded for reversal of judgment are arbitrary fanciful and pervers.
12. In view of above, the petitioners have miserably failed to prove their stance, resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. As regard the cost of the suit, that the respondent, because of the cruel and callous conduct of the petitioners/her brothers, has to run from pillar to post and the respondent cannot be compensated in monetary terms but as a token, the petitioners are burdened with cost of Rs, 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which shall be paid to the respondent No, 1 at the time of execution of the judgment and decree.