1. ' Mst. Barkat Bibi, an unsuccessful plaintiff, in the civil suit before the trial Courts, is in revision here.
2. Her suit for a share in the land in dispute was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 6-3-1988. An appeal filed against that decision failed in the learned lower appellate Court on 10-12-1989.
3. ' First, the facts which are not in dispute. Plaintiff is daughter of Miskin Ali. Mst. Alain Bibi is widow of Miskin Ali and is mother of the plaintiff. Mohammad Sadiq is son of Miskin Ali and is brother of the plaintiff. In die wake of civil disturbances following partition of the Sub-Continent, plaintiff, her father, mother and brother whose names have already been mentioned above were forced to leave their hearths and homes in the State of Jammu and Kashmir it for seeking shelter as refugees in the newly born State of Pakistan. Plaintiff was already a married lady and was putting up in the house of her husband.
4. ' On 30-7-1956, some agricultural land at Qilla Majja Singh, in Tehsil District Gujranwala was temporarily allotted to Miskin Ali in lieu of maintenance. His wife and son, namely, Mst. Alam Bibi and Muhammad Sadiq were grouped with him as his associate family members in the allotment chit. All the three constituted a family unit for guzara purposes. Miskin All was head of the family.
5. Plaintiff was not included in that unit as a family member. Miskin All died in 1965. Exact date of his death is not available on record. On 1-3-1973, rights in the temporary allotment held by Miskin All were transferred to his survivor-associate members of the family, namely, Mst. Alam Bibi and Mohammad Sadiq, vide Ext.D5, an order passed by a Rehabilitation Authority. By mutation No,124 sanctioned on 23-10-1978, proprietary rights in the allotted land measuring 19 kanals, 8 marlas were granted to Mst. Alam Bibi and Mohammad Sadiq for a consideration of Rs,1550 paid by them.
6. Above mutation was attested in pursuance of an order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Gujranwala dated 24-7-1978. It fmds a clear mention in the above mutation. After obtaining ownership rights in the allotted land, Mst. Alam Bibi and Mohammad Sadiq sold the land in dispute to Saif-ur-Rehman son of Ibrahim of Qilla Majja Singh for a consideration of Rs,25,000 vide a deed of sale registered on 7-1-1979. Registered sale deed was given effect to in the revenue records by attestation of mutation No,134. Eversince the sale, the land is in possession of Saif-ur- Rehman vendee who is recorded as its exclusive owner in Jamabandis for the year 1979-80, 1983- 84 Exts. D3, D4.
7. ' On 7-3-1984, plaintiff commenced a civil action against her mother, brother, and vendee from them claiming a third share in the land in dispute after annulment of mutation No,124, registered sale deed dated 7-1-1979 and sanctioned mutation No,134 which gave effect to the sale in revenue records. Plaintiff claimed that as daughter of Miskin Ali, the temporary allottee of the land, she was entitled to a third share in it. Only Saif-ur-Rehman, defendant No,3 in the suit, seriously resisted the claim. In the written statement filed by him, it was pleaded that the suit was filed in collusion with defendants 1 and 2; that suit was barred by limitation; that the suit suffered from absence of a triable cause of action; that the form of the suit was defective; that the valuation for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was incorrectly assessed; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction; that the plaintiff was estopped to institute the suit; that the answering defendant was a bona fide purchaser of land for value. On merits, entitlement of the plaintiff for a share in the land was controverted.
8. ' The trial Court settled necessary issues on 22-10-1984. They are sufficiently described in the impugned judgments and need not be reproduced for avoiding further burdening of the judgment.
9. After settlement of issues, the trial Court took evidence from the parties and upon its critical review found against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. These conclusions were affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge.
10. ' Main point falling for consideration in the revision petition would be about the entitlement of the plaintiff to share the land in dispute with the vendee. It is asserted on her behalf that as daughter of Miskin All who was a temporary allottee of the land in dispute, she was entitled to take her due share in accordance with Islamic Law of inheritance applicable to his estate. I regret my inability to accept the contention because it has no serious merit in it. As said above, land was allotted to Miskin All as head of the family for purposes of maintenance in regard to himself, his wife and the son who associated with him in the family unit constituted for the purposes of receiving guzara.
11. Upon death of Miskin Ali in 1965, his rights in the temporary allotment were transferred to the survivor-associate members of the family only. Right in the temporary allotment held by deceased Miskin All did not remain in vacuous. Plaintiff was never treated as member of the family headed by Miskin All as its sarbarah. Ext. D5 manifestly supports transfer of allotment rights to two surviving members of the family. Thereafter, all throughout, Mst. Alam Bibi and Mohammad Sadiq were treated as temporary allottees of the land. They alone enjoyed the benefit of temporary allotment and plaintiff did not assert her right to a share in allotment with them. Contents in the plaint show that the lands in village Qilla Majja Singh were consolidated and the land in dispute bore post- consolidations khasra numbers. Proprietary rights were conferred upon Mst. Alam Bibi and Mohammad Sadiq in 1978. Thereafter, they sold the land to Saif-ur-Rehman for a valuable consideration. Five years later, plaintiff appeared on the scene to assert her alleged right.
12. Agricultural land temporarily allotted merely for purposes of maintenance is not heritable as the right to receive maintenance comes to an end with the death of the recipient of maintenance.
13. Such a view prevailed in this Court in cases of Allah Rakhi versus Sughra Bibi, etc.---N.L.R. 1980 U.0 126 (Lahore) and Feroze Bibi versus Settlement Commissioner (Land) and another N.L.R. 1980 U.0 128 (Lahore). Consequently, upon the demise of Miskin Ali, his right to receive maintenance terminated and the temporarily allotted land thenceforth enured only for the benefit of survivor-members.
14. Plaintiff was associated with the family of her husband. Learned counsel appearing for her did not controvert that she may have got separate allotment of land for purposes of guzara in her own family. Under the scheme prepared for the purpose, ownership rights in the temporary allotted land were purchased by Mst. Alam Bibi and Mohammad Sadiq only. This event authorised them to sell the land and there was no restraint on them in this behalf. In my view, plaintiff could not share proprietary rights in the land with its purchaser from her mother and brother. As such, further sale to Saif-ur-Rehman was not open to any objection. Also, vendee of the land in dispute is proved to be its bona-fide purchaser for value and is protected under the law. Entries in the revenue papers supported vendors' entitlement and there was nothing in the record to put the vendee on inquiry about any defect in the title of his predecessor-in-interest. Inquiry into the revenue record may have sufficiently convinced the vendee about the marketable title of the vendors. Also, delayed commencement of action by the plaintiff gave rise to equity in favour of the vendee, with whose act of purchasing the land no fault could be found.
15. ' In view of the aforesaid, I could not discover any fault with the impugned judgments rendered by the Courts below and would, accordingly, dismiss the civil revision in limine. .