ATIR MAHMOOD, J.-- Succinctly- stated facts of the case are that on 27.05.2006, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the averments that predecessor of the parties namely Salam was owner of the property fully described in para 4 of the plaint; that Salam had four sons namely Muhammad Din, Noor Ahmed Muhammad Akbar and Jalal Din and three daughters namely Ruqqaya Bibi, Rasheeda Bibi and Sughra Bibi as shown in pedigree-table given it para 1 of the plaint; that the plaintif fs being legal heirs of Muhammad Akbar were entitled to share of said Muhammad Akbar from the legacy of his father Salam to the extent of 14/88 share; that the predecessor-in interest of plain tiffs No. 1 to 9 namely Muhammad Din, Noor Ahmad Jalal Din and defendants No. 9 and 10, predecessor-in-interest o defendants No. 11 to 13 namely Mst. Rasheeda Bibi, in connivance wit' revenue staff got sanctioned mutation No. 210 dated 22.05.1982 whereby Akbar Ali was deprived from his legal share, therefore, the said mutation is void, ineffective and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintif fs; that the plaintif fs asked the defendants many a time to give them their legal share s out of the estate left by Salam and get cancelled the aforesaid mutation but they refused which constrained the plaintif fs to institute the suit.
2. The suit was contested by the respondents. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: "ISSUES : (1).Whether the plaintif fs are entitled to declaration as per their plaint? OPP .
(2).Whether plaintif fs have got no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD.
(3).Whether suit has been filed in collaboration with defendants No 1-A to 13? OPD.
(4).Whether suit is not maintainable due to non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary party? OPD.
(5).Whether suit is time-barred? OPD.
(6),Whether plaintif f has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD.
(7).Whether proper Court--fee has not been affixed, if so what is the correct value of suit property for the purpose of Court fee? OPD.
(7-A). Whether defendants No. 14 to 19 purchased the land measuring 36 kanls out of the suit property without notice and they are bona fide purchasers for payment of consideration? OPD.
(7-13).Whether plaintif fs are estopped by their words and conduct to file suit against defendants No, 14 to 19?
OPD. 14 to 19.
(8). Whether suit has been filed to harass and blackmail the defendants? If so, compensatory costs? OPD.
(9) Relief."
Both the parties led their respective evidence which was duly recorded. Thereafter , learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintif fs vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2012 . The respondents preferred appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur accepted appeal of the respondents vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015. Hence this civil revision has been filed by the plaintif fs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the impugned judgment and decree is against the law; that well-reasoned judgment and decree of learned trial Court has been upset by learned lower appellate Court without assigning any plausible reason; that there is misreading and non-reading of evidence; that there are material irregularities and illegalities in the impugned judgment and decree; that decree dated 25.02.1979 recognizes the right of inheritance of Akbar but by the impugned mutation sanctioned on the basis of said decree, Akbar Was deprived from his lawful right of inheritance, therefore, the said mutation cannot sustain which aspect has altogether been ignored by learned lower appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, this civil revision be allowed, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court be restored.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No 1 to 6 and respondents No. 19 to 24 have vehemently opposed this civil revision and fully supported the impugned judgment and decree whereas learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 10 to 18 has supported the petitioners.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Prior to the instant suit, Muhammad Din etc. filed a suit for declaration against Muhammad Din and Akbar (predecessor of the petitioners) (mentioned Akbar . sit.) Salam) alleging that the oral sale dated 22.10.1970 in favour of Muhammad Din and Akbar by Salam (deceased) was fraudulent.. In the suit; they stated that the - plaintif f's No. 1 to 6 and defendant No. 2 (Akbar) are sons and daughters of Salam (deceased). The said suit was ultimately decreed and the property reverted to Salam .whereupon mutation No. 210 dated 22.05.1982 was sanctioned in favour of LRs of Salam except Akbar . In view of the aforesaid, there remains no doubt and even not denied by the defendants in the instant suit that Akbar was son of Salam but astonishingly , while sanctioning disputed mutation No. 210 dated 22.05.1 982, Akbar was deprived from his lawful right of inheritance in the estate of his father Salam.
7. There is no denial to the fact that Akbar remained alive for some years after attestation of the disputed mutation and did not challenge the same in his lifetime. There is also no denial to the fact that the petitioners did not challenge the disputed mutation for a longtime till 27.05.2006 when they filed the instant suit. Even then, the right of Akbar to inherit property from his deceased father did not extinguish for the reason that as per injunctions of Islam as well as dictums laid down by the superior courts consistently that with death of Muslim owner of a certain property , the same automatically devolves upon his legal heirs, alive at that time When the property stood devolved upon the LRs of the deceased Muslim at the moment of his death, they (LRs) will be treated as owner of the property from that moment. 1 hat is why; the superior Courts have held in a numerous judgments that no limitation runs in the cases of inheritance. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the august Supreme Court in case reported as Mst. Sarwar Jan and others versus Mukhtar Ahmad and others (PLD 2012 SC 217). Relevant portion from the said judgment is reproduced below: "6 It is settled law that the succession to the estate of a Muslim under the Mohammedan Law shall open the moment a person departs from this world. It is his legal heirs, as per the Shariah, who are alive at that time shall be entitled to inherit his estate."
8. Firstly , Akbar alongwith other (As of Salam became owner of property to the extent of his legal shore at the moment when Salam passed away . Likewise, the petitioners became owner of the property to the extent of share of his father Akbar in the property of his father (Salam) at the time when their father (Akbar) died in the year 1991.
When the petitioners or their predecessor Akbar were owner of the property to the extent of share of Akbar in the property of Salam, mere non-challenging the 'mutation in question does not deprive them from their lawful right of inheritance. In view of the aforesaid, I have no doubt in my mind that Akbar being son of Salam was entitled to inherit from the property of his father alongwith other legal heirs but he was deprived from his lawful right of inheritance illegally and unlawfully which could not be done, therefore, the disputed mutation is illegal and unlawful and liable to be set aside.
9. Since Akbar was entitled to get legal/sharai share from the property of his father Salam, the petitioners being LRs of Akbar are entitled to get share in the property of Salam to the extent of lawful share of Akbar . However , a certain portion of the property left by Salam has been sold out by the LRs of Salam who got property by virtue of the disputed mutation to respondents No. 19 to 24. The stance of respondents No 19 to 24 is that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice as they first scrutinized the titled documents in favour of the vendors and on finding them owners of the property as is per the title documents/r evenue record, they purchased, the property while noting that there was no encumbrance upon sale of the same. The petitioners while filing the instant suit did not make respondents No. 19 to 24 party to the suit and they themselves made party to the suit by way of filing application under Order I, Rule 10, CPC. Even, petitioner-plaintif f No. 1 Mumtaz Ahmed while appearing before the Court as PW.1 states that they have filed the suit against four brothers and three sisters and none else. He further states that they want no relief from any other person. Furthermore, parties are residents of one and the same locality . The petitioners have also admittedly exchanged propert y with respondents No. 19 to 21 which they inherited from Mst. Sharifan Bibi, widow of Salam and grandmother of the petitioners. Needless to mention here that Mst. Sharifan inherited this property from the estate of Salam, ie. the suit property . In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be believed that they were not in knowledge of sale of the suit property in favour of respondents No. 19 to 24. But they neither challenged the sale transactions made in favour of respondents No. 19 to 24 in the suit nor alleged them to be fraudulent nor made them party to the suit nor challan the said transactions till date.
Most importantly , when they themselves say that they have no claim against any person except the original defendants, Le. four brothers and three sisters, there arises no question for setting aside the title documents in favour of respondents No. 19 to 24 (Exh. D9 to Exh. D16 produced by the respondents in their documentary evidence) as they, in the given circumstances, are bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice and are protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, therefore, the sale transactions made in favour of respondents No. 19 to 24 will remain intact.
10. Learned lower appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment has ignored the above aspects of the case and reached an incorrect conclusion to dismiss the suit of the petitioners in whole. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree cannot sustain.
11. Sequel to above, this civil revision is partly allowed and the findings of learned lower appella te Court on issues 1 to 6 are reversed to the findings of learned trial Court whereas findings of learned owner appellate Court on issue No. 7 to 7B are upheld and the judgment and decree of learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the petitioners are entitled to get their share derived by them from their Father Akbar- in the estate of Salam from the 1.Rs of Salam who are beneficiaries of the disputed mutation. However , respondents No. 19 to 24 will not be disturbed in this process in any manner and they will continue to enjoy the posse ssion and ownership of the land purchased by them from LRs of Salam as usual. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.