NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, J.---This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos.13/2014, 22/2014 and 56/2014, as all these petitions are directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st November 2010 (hereinafter the "judgment" ), passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Pishin (hereinafter the "trial court" ) in Civil Suit No.80/2009, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintif f) was decreed in her favour against the defendants. Assailed in Civil Appeal No.0 3/201 1 by the petitioner (defendant No.22), Civil Appeal No.04/201 1 by the petitioners (defendants Nos.12 to 16) and Civil Appeal No.24/201 1 by the petitioners (defendants Nos.8 to 10- A); vide, consolidated judgment and decree dated 25th November 2013 (hereinafter the "impugned judgment" ), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pishin (hereinafter the "appellat e court"), whereby , the appeals filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. Hence, these petitions with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by the trial, as well as, appellate court and to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintif f).
2. Facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (plaintif f) filed a suit for declaration, possession through partition, cancellation of mutations/agreements and permanent injunction against the defendants (including petitioners) with the averments that the plaintif f, defendan ts Nos.1 and 2 are daughter and sons of late Malik Ahmed Jan, who died in the year 1980; after his demise the plaintif f and defendants Nos.1 and 2 (being legal heirs) became owners of the properties mentioned in para No.1 of the suit. It was further stated that the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 just to deprive the plaintif f from her lawful share mutated the suit properties in their names vide, Mutations Nos.38, 58, 59, 61, 62 130 and 131 and thereafter illegally transferred the same in the names of other defendants, vide, Mutation Nos.10, 31, 33, 70, 71, 94, 95, 61, 62 and 137; subsequently , the defendants Nos.1 and 2 entered into exchange with the defendant No.6 (Akhtar Muhammad) whereby the property bearing Khasras Nos.768, 337, 339, 442, 383, 362, 360 and 7 Qitas, vide agreement dated 16th October 1985. Hence, this suit with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants to the following effect: a. Declaring that plaintiff is lawful and legal heir of late Malik Ahmed Jan and she is legally entitled for the due share of the properties detail whereof has been given in paras Nos. 1, 2 and 3; b. Declaring that plaintiff is co-sharer in the property and she is entitled for her due share as prescribed under the Muhammadan Law of inheritance; c. By means of mandatory injunction the defendants be directed to partition the properties by meats and bonds and further plaintiff be put in possession of her respective share, in case of failure of defendants, official defendant be directed to partition the land and to hand over the vacant possession of the shares of plaintiff d. By means of permanent injunction, the defendant be restrained not to interfere in the peaceful possession shares/ properties of the plaintiff; e. Directing the official defendant to cancel all the mutation entries detail whereof are provided in the paras Nos.1, 2 and 3 and transaction of exchange entered with defendants inter se be cancelled and declared it illegal and void to the extent of rights of plaintiff; f. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumsta nces of the case be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants; g. Costs of the suit be awarded."
3. On service of notices, the defendants Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 the defendants 8-A to 10 (petitioners in Civil Revision No.56/2014), the defendants Nos.15, 15-b (petitioners in Civil Revision No,22/2014), the defendants Nos.18 to 20 and defendant No.22 (petitioner) filed their respective written statements, wherein they raised certain legal objections in respect of maintainability of the suit and contested the same on merits as well.
4. Out of pleadings of the parties, issues framed, parties exhausted their respective sides and recorded their statements on Oath.
5. On conclusion of trial, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pishin, vide judgment and decree dated 31st November 2010, decreed the suit of plaintif f against the defendants in the following terms: a. It is declared that plaintif f is lawful and legal heir of late Malik Ahmed Jan and she is legally entitled for due share of the properties detail whereof has been given in Paras Nos.], 2, 3 of the plaint; b. It is declared that plaintif f is co-sharer in the suit property and she is entitled for her due share as prescribed under the Muhammadan law of inheritance; c. By means of mandatory injunction the defendants are directed to partition the properties by meats and bonds and deduct/separate the share of plaintif f and that plaintif f be put in possession of her respective share, in case of failure of defendants, official defendant is directed to partition the land and to hand over the vacant possession of the shares of plaintif f. d. By means of permanent injunction, the defendants are restrained not to interfere in the peaceful possession shares/properties of the plaintif f; e. The official defendant is directed to cancel all the mutation entries detail whereof are provided in the Paras Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the plaint and transaction of exchange entered with defendants inter se be cancelled and the same is declared illegal and void to the extent of share/rights eplaintif f; f. The concerned Revenue officials are further directed that after partition and deduction of the plaintif f's share from the suit property , the due share of plaintif f be mutated/transferred on her name."
Assailed in civil appeals, but dismissed, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25th November 2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pishin. Hence these petitions.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance.
It is relevant to note here that one Malik Ahmed Jan (late) died in the year 1980, leaving behind various properties (detail whereof has been mentioned in the opening paras of the plaint); survived by two sons namely Abdul Jabbar and Nazeer Ahmed, Mst. Khair-un-Nisa wife of Abdul Jabbar (daughter-in law) (defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3) and Noor Bibi (plaintif f). Main dispute between the parties is that late Malik Ahmed Jan alleged to have transferred the ownership rights of one portion of his properly to defendant No.1, through Hibba which subsequently was purchased by Jameel Ahmed, Naseer Ahmed, Muneer Ahmed, Nazeer Ahmed, Muhammad Zareef, Shah Jahan and Gulab Shah (defendants Nos.8 to 10-A) (petitioners in Civil Revision Petition No.56/2014), on the basis whereof, the defendants Nos.1 and 2 and purchasers named above tried to establish that daughters of late Malik Ahmed Jan had no legal and lawful right or entitlement over the property-in-dispute; they further placed reliance on an Arbitration Award by DW-1 Akhundzada Abdul Mateen, the sole Arbitrator , who in his Court statement admitted that neither he was authorized by the female members of late Malik Ahmed Jan's family nor he obtained their consent nor even asked them of the alleged Arbitration; thus, the referred Arbitration is of no legal effect. Apart from this, the petitioners were under legal obligation to have established ingredients of the gift claimed by them under the impugned mutations. However , no particulars whatsoever of time, date, place and witnesses of the declaration of the gift (allegedly) made by late Malik Ahmed Jan in favour of the defendants Nos.1 and 2 have been provided in their pleadings nor any evidence could be produced by them in this behalf; this is fatal to the petitioners' plea.
7. It is well settled law that limitation does not run against a void transaction nor efflux of time extinguishes the right of inherence; equally a mutation is not proof of title and a beneficiary there under must prove the original transaction. In this respect reliance is placed on the reported judgments titled; Peer Bakhsh and others v. Mst.
Khanzadi and others (2016 SCMR 1417 ), Muhammad Iqbal v . Mukhtar Ahmed (2008 SCMR 855), Hakim Khan v . Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani (1992 SCMR 1832 ).
8. It is also a well known principle of law that once it is established that the plaintif f is entitled to inherent left over of his (her) deceased father , he (she) became co-sharer in the each and every inch of the property of deceased predecessor; thus, the plaintif f (respondent No.1) is entitled to inherent left over of her deceased father , she became co-sharer in the property on death of her father to the extent of her share for all intents and purposes; thus co-sharers are not entitled to alienate more than their share. Moreover , each co-sharer is deemed to be owner in joint property and any one of them cannot act in a manner , which constitute an invasion on the rights and liabilities of other co-sharers. Admittedly , the plaintif f is daughter of late Malik Ahmed Jan (owner) and under the law entitled to succeed and inherit the left-over of the deceased. Since the plaintif f stepped into the shoes of her father and became shareholder to the extent of her share; any of the brothers, who were also co-sharers in the property cannot deprive sister of her due share by alienating the property falling in her share.
9. Coming to the validity of the gift, even otherwise, the donee claiming any gift that excluded an heir, is required by law to establish the original transaction of gift is a registered deed or otherwise. In the present case, there is no evidence of declaration of gift or of its acceptance on record; mere transfer of poss ession to donee is not sufficient to constitute a valid gift under the law; in this context the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, held in the case of Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail (2002 SCMR 1938 ) that gift deed must justify the disinheritance of an heir from the gift, which in the instant case is lacking. Further reliance is placed on the case of Fareed and others v.
Muhammad T ufail (2018 SCMR 139 ).
10. So far bona fide purchasers are concerned, as agitated by Mr. Abdul !Chai r Achakzai, learned counsel for petitioners (in Civil Revision Petition No.5 6/2014), in order to invoke provisions of section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is necessary that transferor should be ostensible owner , his ownership should be consented or implied by real owner , the transfer should be for consideration and transferee must have acted in good faith taking reasonable care to ascertain that transferor had the power to transfer , but the petitioners Jameel Ahmed, Naseer Ahmed, Muneer Ahmed, Nazeer Ahmed, Muhammad Zarif, Shah Jahan and Gula b Shah did not take care of this important aspect of the matter and legal requirement; however , their right in view of section 41 ibid, are protected.
In this respect, reliance is placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment reported in the case of Muhammad Shamim v. Mst. Nisar Fatima (2010 SCMR 18). So the right of transferee vendee who denied their title from the petitioners are protected to their extent and would be deducted and adjusted from the shares devolved upon the sons of late Malik Ahmed Jan and would not be deducted from the share of respondent No.1 (plaintif f).
Besides, that it being a case of deprivatio n of legal heir, not entered into any conscious transaction with the vendor of the said transferee, so they may not be compensated at the cost of deprived legal heir. Principle of bona fide purchaser is based on equity , which cannot be invoked in such a manner that may cause injustice to the others.
Equity stems out of its roots of justice, fairplay , reasonableness and good conscious. It may not be involved as a rule of thumb. In peculiar circumstances of the case, if this principle is applie d against the respondent No.1 (plaintif f) for protection of the petitioners (defendants), it would not be equity , but an oppressive phenomenon like.
Rob Peter to pay Paul. Thus, they may well be advised to claim their right, if any, from their transferor . Mst. Noor Bibi (respondent No. 1/plaintif f), being residuary of Malik Ahmed Jan would inherit from his property , as of her own right under the Islamic law (Sharia). The interest of such transferees' may be adjusted from defendants Nos.1 and 2 own property acquired from their father , but not from the share of respondent No.1 (plaintif f).
11. Furthermore, the concurrent findings of fact and law arrived at by two courts below can only be disturbed, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the same are illegal, unlawful based on misapp lication of relevant provisions of law; shocking; perverse; artificial and; fanciful. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any above referred grounds for interference in the judgments and decrees impugned. The Court could not go behind concurrent findings of fact, unless it can be shown that the finding is on the face of it against the evidence or so patently improbable, or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice, or if there has been any misapplication or principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally , if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible". No such thing could be brought on record to warrant interference by this Court. (Reliance is placed on the case of Syed Hussain Naqvi and others v. Mst. Begum Zakara Chatha and others (2015 SCMR 1081 ).
12. The courts below shown to have passed well-reasoned and speaking judgments and decrees, based on correct appreciation of the record in the light of relevant provisions of the law, thus, the same are not open to any exception; hence maintained, consequently the petitions IG filed by the petitioners being devoid of any merit stand dismissed.