This civil revision arises out of a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners on 9-10-1980 in the Court of Civil Judge, A.I Pur claiming ownership and possession of 13 Kanals of land situated in village Shahar Sultan, Tehsil A.I Pur, District Muzaffargarh and for cancellation of mutation of inheritance No.2571, dated 12-3-1965 as being illegal and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff. The suit was resisted by Mst. Sohagan respondent No. 5 and Mst. Pathani, respondent No. 6, who filed their written statements in the Court on 22-12-1980. The suit was admitted by respondent No. 2 (1 to 9).
On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues: (1)Whether the suit is barred by time? O.P.D.
(2)Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? O.P.D.
(3)Whether the suit is bad for misdescription of the suit land? O.P.D.
(4)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? O.P.D.
(5)Whether the inheritance mutation No. 2571, dated 12-3-1965 is illegal, void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff? O.P.P.
(6)Relief.
Issues Nos.4 and 5 regarding cause of action and the legality or otherwise of mutation No. 2571 were decided against petitioner/plaintiff and the suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31-3-1982. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 20-2-1984. Hence this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the concurrent findings of the Courts below on issues Nos. ,4 and 5. He submitted that the disputed mutation was fraudulently got sanctioned in connivance with the revenue officials in the absence of the petitioners. The Courts below failed to consider that there was no corroboration about the date of death of Mahmood, father of the petitioner. He further submitted that the suit was conceded by Mst.
Ghulaman, deceased defendant No. 2. Even Mst. Pathani, respondent No. 6 admitted the suit in her better statement recorded by the trial Court on 22-12-1980. Lastly he submitted that in (he present case section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was not applicable. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below could not be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as there was no jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments/decrees. He further submitted that the suit was hopelessly barred by time and that this point was raised before the learned Additional District Judge but the same was not adverted to by the Court. He explained that the plaintiff had admitted :hat during consolidation proceedings Wanda of defendants Nos. 5 to 1 was separately made but he took no step to assert his alleged title till warrants of possession were issued against the plaintiff on the basis of scheme of consolidation. According to the learned counsel the respondents were in possession of the land as owners since 12-6-1965 when the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned but the suit was brought on 11-3-1980 which was clearly barred by time. In this connection he has referred to Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shari PLD 1971 SC 762 and Qutub-ud-Din v. Muhammad Siddiq and others PLD 1969 Lah. 418. Regarding the admission of Mst. Ghulaman the learned counsel explained that Mst. Ghulaman was daughter of Mahmood and sister of Zahid. If Zahid was excluded from inheritance the shares of other heir including that of Mst. Ghulaman would have increased. For that reason Mst Ghulaman had conceded the suit. So far as the statement of Mst. Pathani is concerned the learned counsel submitted that the said statement was recorded on 22-12-1980 only for the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. This could not be read in evidence. If at all, the other respondents were not bound by the said statement. He further explained that the said admission had no value in the eye of law because it was clearly erroneous. Moreover, the plaintiff who wanted to rely on the said admission did not call Mst. Pathani as a witness in the case.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant records. Admittedly mutation P.1 of inheritance hearing No. 2571 was entered on 15-1-1965 and sanctioned on 12-3-1965. The petitioner who appeared as P.W. 1 in the case clearly admitted in the cross-examination that all the legal heirs of Mahmood including himself had appeared before the Revenue Officer at the time of sanction of the mutation. No objection was raised at that time that the mutation could not be sanctioned in favour of the respondents on the ground that Mahmood had allegedly died somewhere in 1952. The Courts below had recorded the finding of fact that Mahmood had died in the year 1965. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence in recording the said finding. At that time the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance was in force and respondent No. .2 (1 to 9) legal heirs of Mst. Ghulaman (pre-deceased daughter) as well as Mst. Sohagan and Mst. Pathani being the legal heirs of Zahid, pre-deceased son, were entitled to inherit the property of Mahmood deceased under the law.
4. There is also force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that after having acquiesced in the title of the respondent in the land, the plaintiff belatedly brought the suit only when warrants of possession were issued against him on the basis of the consolidation scheme. As admittedly by Muhammad Nawaz P.W. 2, land falling to the share of Pathani, Sohagan and Abdul Malik after consolidation was in possession of A.I Khan, the petitioner/ plaintiff. He filed the suit only to prolong his illegal possession over the land. The mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 12-3-1965 in the presence of the petitioner/plaintiff but he filed the suit on 11-3-1980.
It was clearly barred by time and merited dismissal on that short ground alone. As held in Ahmad Din's case referred to above, where a mutation of inheritance is sanctioned in the presence of a party and the suit is brought beyond the period of 6 years it is barred by time. In view of the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act it is the duty of the Court itself to take notice of the bar of limitation even if the parties do not raise the said point. So far as the admissions made by Mst.
Ghulaman and Mst. Pathani are concerned these were erroneous and could not bind the respondent. Mst. Pathani's statement recorded on 22-12-1980 in relation to the disposal of the application for temporary injunction could not be equated with evidence recorded during the trial.
5. I do not find any misreading or non-reading of the evidence or any jurisdictional defect in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below which may call for interference by this Court in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Hence this revision petition fails and is dismissed without any orders as to costs.
H.B.T./A-740/L