MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, J.--- The instant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2012 dated 27.4.2013 of learned Additional Distric t Judge, Lakki Marwat, whereby the appeal of the respondents was accepted and thereby the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2012, passed by the Civil Judge-No-IV , Lakki Marwat in suit No. 223/1, was set-aside and the suit of plaintif f was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents / plaintiffs filed a suit against the contesting petitioners/defendants for declaration-cum-perpetual mandatory injunction. It is averred in the plaint one Daraz s/o Sarfaraz was owner-in- possession of the suit property bearing Khata Nos: 421 to 431 in Mauza Pahar Khel Lakki and the land bearing Khata Nos: 644 to 653 in Mauza Zangi Khel Lakki Marwat according to Jamabandi of 1931-32; that said Daraz died who was survived by his sons namely-Mosam Khan, Muhammad Jan and daughters namely- Mst: Maikhela and Khela Bibi; that Rahim Khan and proforma defendants No.14 to 20 are the legal heirs of Mst: Maikhela d/o Daraz while proforma defendants No.12 & 13 are the legal heirs of Mst: Khela Bibi d/o Daraz; that inheritance mutation No. 4605 dated 21.3.1934 regarding legacy of said Daraz Khan in Mauza Pahar Khel was attested only in favour of his two sons namely-Mosam Khan and Muhammad Jan while his two daughters were deprived; that another inheritance mutation No.6946 dated 19.11.1934 was also attested regarding legacy of Daraz Khan in Khata No. 644, 648, 649 , 652 & 653 in Mauza Zangi Khel Lakki was only attested in favour of Mosam Khan, therefore, both the mutation are against law, Sharia, based on malafide and ineffective upon the rights of plaintiff and proforma defendants, thus, are liable to cancellation; that Muhammad Jan s/o Daraz died issueless and regarding his legacy inheritance mutation No. 4728 in Mauza Pahar Khel Lakki and another inheritance mutation No. 4946 dated 19.11.1934 in Mauza Zangi Khel Lakki Marwat was attested in favour of Mosam Khan his real brother, which is also wrong as Mst: Maikhela and Khela Bibi were deprived, hence, said mutations are also liable to be corrected.
3. Petitioners/defendants resisted the suit by submitting their written statement raising various legal and factual objections therein. Divergent pleadings of the parties resulted in framing of certain issues including relief. After adducing pro and contra evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs. The said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was impugned before appellate court which was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court was set-aside and the suit of respondents/plaintiffs was decreed in their favour against the petitioners/defendants, hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Parties derive their title from one Daraz s/o Sarfaraz their predecessor. petitioners deny their relationship with respondent No.1/plaintiff while the latter allege to be son of Mst: Maikhela daughter of Daraz. Petitioners are admittedly legal heirs of Mosam Khan who was son of Daraz. It is alleged by respondent No.1 that Daraz had two sons Mosam Khan and Muhammad Jan and two daughters Mst: Maikhela and Mst: Khela Bibi.
Muhammad Jan is stated to have died issueless and his inheritance also devolved on Mosam Khan, but petitioners dispute this pedigree table and allege complete ouster of respondent No.1 from their family and having two daughters of Daraz.
6. In his suit instituted on 01.10.2010 lateron amended on 20.4.2012 plaintif f has challenged inheritance mutation No. 4605 attested on 21.3.1934 of Daraz Ex.PW 1/5 in Mauza Pahar KHel and inheritance mutation No. 6946 attested on 19.3.1934 in Mauza Zangi Khel only in favour of his son Mosam Khan. In support of his plaint, Patwari Halqa was produced as PW-1. Mian Gul Nawaz, Muhammad Aslam were produced as PW-2 & PW-3, respectively .
PW-4 is plaintif f/respondent No.1. The witnesses have been cross-examined, but they remained consistent to the stance as averred in the plaint.
7. On the other hand, Ghias-ud-Din special attorney of petitioners appeared as DW-2 besides Muharrir PS Lakki Marwat as DW-1. The presence of any criminal case per-se would not be a ground to apply the doctrine of ouster against respondent No.1 in case he proves his relationship as grandson of Daraz.
8. A reference to both certificates Ex.PW-4/1 and its entry in the register Ex.PW-4/2 (but in the examination-in-chief it is marked as Ex.PW -5/1 and Ex.PW -5/2 with objection by petitioners relating to its genuineness). This was not accepted to be genuine when it dismissed the suit but learned appellate court has based it for granting decree to respondent No.1 on acceptance of his appeal.
9. Perhaps learned appellate court seized of the appeal was not oblivious to the general trend of the society where female relatives are deprived of their share in the inheritance. Such practice has been strongly deprecated by Hon'ble Superior Courts in its landmark judgments.
10. An objection to limitation for filing of suit was raised that has to be considered in juxta position with the said trend as well as the legality and practicability of revenue record. It is by now settled that entries of revenue record are meant for fiscal purposes and every such fresh entry gives a fresh cause of action, and must be so because access or right to have information was not guaranteed before the 18 Amendment but after insertion of Article.19-A in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, right to information is now basic fundamental right. Not an ordinary person had access to a Patwari or any other revenue officials in older times for getting knowledge of entries of revenue record; the same is still prevalent in far flung areas. Hon'ble Supreme Court recently declared that Patwaris have to have their offices in Tehsil offices to be accessible to all and sundry. When the state fails to provide easy access of common man to public documents then the common man should not be bound by any adverse entries of revenue record without providing a prior opportunity of hearing. If the maxim, "audi alteram partem" is a principle of natural justice and applicable in every situation and has to be read into every statute then why it should not benefit a common man when he feels aggrieved against any entry in the revenue record. It is the responsibility of a revenue official to inform the affected person when the entries in revenue record is altered to his detriment and it is the right and obligation of a citizen to be informed. In case reported as 2017 SCMR 1476 titled Khan Muhammad through L.Rs & others Y. Mst:Khatoon Bibi & others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-th "
11. As far as the question of limitation in filing suit for declaration is concerned, we also would like to discuss it in some detail. In general, the time provided for such suit under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is six years. Different aspects regarding reckoning/calculating this period of limitation have been considered and some yardsticks have been settled by this Court in different nature of cases and the situation cropping-up according to the facts and circumstances of the cases. In the cases of simple correction of revenue record, it is settled by now that every fresh wrong entry in the record of rights would provide fresh cause of action provided the party aggrieved is in possession of the property as owner needless to say that it can be either physical or symbolic possession. Similarly, in the cases of claiming right of inheritance, it is well settled that the claimant becomes co owner/co-sharer of the property left by the predecessor along with others the moment the predecessor dies and entry of mutations of inheritance is only meant for updating the revenue record and for fiscal purposes. If a person feels himself aggrieved of such entries, he can file a suit for declaration within six years of such wrong entries or knowledge. Any such repetition of the said entries in the revenue record would again give him a fresh cause of action or when the rights of anyone in the property are denied it would also give fresh cause of action. Similarly, it is again settled by now that no limitation would run against the co-sharer. We for instance can quote few judgments covering all these aspects like Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Samar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1), Riaz Ahmad and 2 others v. Additional District Judge and 2 others (1999 SCMR 1328), Mst. Suban v. Allah Ditta and others (2007 SCMR 635), Muhammad Anwar and 2 others v. Khuda Yar and 25 others (2008 SCMR 905) and Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others (2015 SCMR 869). In recent past certain judgments have been rendered in the cases of inheritance wherein the question of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel have been considered like in the cases of Mst.
Phaphan through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others (2005 SCMR 1278), Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others (2007 SCMR 1446), Lal Khan through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs (PLD 2011 SC 657), Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others (2013 SCMR 299), Mst. Grana through Legal Heirs and others v. Sahib Kamala Bibi and others (PLD 2014 SC 167) and Noor Din and another v . Additional District Judge, Lahore and others ( 2014 SCMR 513 )."
11. To protect the rights of near relative against deprivation from his share in his lawfully owned property is a common cause of litigation in Civil courts but it is more anaemic when right of a person is violated by act of a public official. In such case the public official is to be reprimanded and the agonies of the person be resolved at his doorstep.
12. In the present case, respondent No.1/plaintiff took about more than seventy (70) years to be given a remedy but not at his doorstep and only after facing agony of prolonged litigation. Petitioners have simply defended the suit by his solitary statement that bespeaks of his casual attitude towards such an important issue that a person envies to be known by the name of his ancestors. No evidence is brought forward by petitioners to indicate that respondent No.1 hails from any other family. Their silence in this regard is acquiescence and waiver to accept contentions of respondent No.1/plaintiff.
8. In view of the above, I hold that the judgment and decree passed by the learned appeal court, whereby the appeal of respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed is based on proper appreciation of evidence which does not require any interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court, hence, the instant revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.