' The suit giving rise to this revision was instituted by Mst. Haleema daughter of Abdur Rehman (petitioner) seeking a decree of joint possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land situate in village Kara Khel. Tehsil and District Peshawar. According to the plaintiff the land in suit originally belonged to one Afzal who died when custom was in force and his inheritance devolved in equal shares on his three sons namely Abdul Munaf, Hasham and Abdur Rehman. Abdur Rehman, the father of the plaintiff, also died during custom and his entire 1/3rd share was inherited by the plaintiff. She, further alleged that although she was alive her inheritance mutation No, 66 was fraudulently sanctioned on 30-5-1932 in favour of the respondents who are the collaterals of Abdur Rehman and because of this fraud her name was omitted from the revenue record. She alleged that in spite of the omission of her name she was in joint possession of the land and has been receiving the produce thereof. The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 6 whereas the other defendants were proceeded against ex parte. Defendants 1 to 6 besides raising the plea of limitation and adverse possession vehemently denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was alleged that mutation No, 66 was correctly attested in their favour on 30-5-1932 because the limited estate of the plaintiff stood terminated by virtue of her marriage and since then they were in exclusive possession of the suit land as owners, The contention that the plaintiff was receiving the produce of the suit land was also denied.
2. The learned trial Court in view of the evidence produced in the case came to the conclusion that Abdur Rehman inherited 1/3rd share in the property of his father when custom was in force.
Subsequently on the death of Abdur Rehman during custom his entire share devolved on the plaintiff who was his only daughter. It was also found that the plaintiff got married when custom was in force and, therefore, her limited estate stood terminated and the property was rightly mutated in favour of the reversionary. The plea that the defendants were in adverse possession of the land since 1932 and the plaintiff's suit was hopelessly barred by time also prevailed. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, dismissed on 29-6-1978. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, on 6-2-1980 and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. It was held that the plaintiff was a limited owner under the customary law and her limited estate stood terminated by virtue of her marriage during rewaj and, therefore, mutation No, 66 was rightly sanctioned on 30-5-1932 in favour of the respondent. The defendants were also found to be in adverse possession of the land since 1932 and the plaintiffs suit was held as barred by limitation. The contention of the plaintiff that she has been receiving the produce of the suit land and was in joint possession thereof was also repelled,
3. In support of the revision it is contended that Mutation No, 66 of the year 1932 was fraudulently sanctioned as the inheritance mutation of the plaintiff whereas in fact she was alive and has been receiving the produce of her share till a few months before the institution of the present suit.
However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Abdur Rehman, the father of the plaintiff, had died when custom was in vogue and she inherited his entire 1/3rd share as a limited owner. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff got married during rewaj and, therefore, under the customary law her limited estate stood terminated. It appears that the impugned mutation should have been sanctioned in favour of the respondents on account of the termination of the limited estate due to her marriage but erroneously it was described as an inheritance mutation.
However, the fact remains that the collaterals of Abdur Rehman became entitled to the property in question on the termination of the life estate of the plaintiff. From the revenue record it is clear that after the aforesaid mutation the respondents are entered as exclusive owners in possession of the suit land till the institution of the present suit on 16-5-1975. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that in spite of the mutation the plaintiff had been receiving the produce of the suit land. The evidence of Nadir Khan (P. W. 4) and Ghulam Qadir (P. W. 5) appears to have been rightly discarded by both the Courts below since this evidence was not sufficient to hold in favour of the plaintiff. The respondents entered into possession of the property in 1932 in their own right as full owners when customary law was the rule of succession. Therefore, the contention that they entered into possession of the property as co-owners or co-heirs with the plaintiff is without any substance. They continuously remained in possession as owners to the knowledge of the plaintiff and in denial of her right since 1932 till the institution of the present suit in 1975. It was, therefore, rightly held that the defendants were in adverse possession of the suit land and the plaintiff's suit was barred by time. In Mst. Sahib Jan Bibi v. Walidad (1) it was held that :- ' But they have come into Court in 1955, about twenty-seven years after the death of Khan Karamdad Khan and twenty years after the enactment of the Act of 1935. During this interval, the two sons, Walidad Khan and Allandad Khan, who entered into exclusive possession of the property as full owners, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and remained in open possession, acquired full ownership by prescription against claimants created by subsequent legislation. Their possession as owners in their own right, and not as co-heirs with the plaintiffs, was to all intents and purposes hostile to the plaintiffs . They entered into possession of the property in 1928 in their own right as full owners, remained in open possession as such, effected partitions and denied access to the property to the plaintiffs, and all these facts were within the plaintiffs' knowledge."
' The view expressed in the cited case was approved by the Hon'able Supreme Court in Aslam and another v. Mst. Kamalzai (2) wherein it was observed that it could not have been the intention of the makers of the Statute to reopen the inheritance, even in cases where the heirs had taken an absolute vested estate under custom. Only the limited estates taken under custom, which were, in any event, to terminate on the death or re-marriage of the female heir were intended to be distributed according to Muslim Personal Law. It was further observed that :- "The question of limitation also has, in our view, to be answered in favour of the appellants. The estate that they took as customary heirs, they took in their own right as absolute owners to the exclusion of all others. Mst. Kamalzai cannot say that she was unaware of this fact or that the possession of the appellants was in any way possession as co-heirs. In the kind of possession that they took, the element of ouster was also present, for, their possession was not only open but also hostile in their own right as full owners. Mst. Kamalzai's suit, therefore, for a share in the estate that they had taken was clearly barred by limitation."
4. In this view of the matter no exception can be taken to the findings arrived at by the Courts below. The revision having no merit is,
(1) PLD 1961 (W. P.) Pesh. 9 (2) P L 13 1974 SC 207 therefore, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs,