1. ' This is a plaintiffs revision application against the judgment and decree dated 134-1990 of learned Additional District Judge, passed in Civil Appeal No,118 of 1978 whereby judgment and decree of learned trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit was reversed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
2. ' Sher Muhammad was owner of some land, at Mauza Kufri in Tehsil Khushab. He died without leaving a male issue on 2-2-1957. He was survived by two daughters, namely, Mst. Satbharai, Mst.
3. Basran and sister, namely, Mst. Mahmood Khatoon. By Mutation No,5125 attested on 14-6-1957, Revenue Officer mutated a half share in his land collectively to the two daughters and the remainder half, was allocated to the sister of the deceased. Later, by Mutation No,6305, sanctioned on 8-2-1973, land held by Mst. Satbharai was mutated in the name of Mst. Basran, on the assumption of former's death on 6-12-1972. Mst. Mahmood Khatoon donated her share in the land to her grandson, Khair Muhammad through a registered deed dated 20-8-1975. Gift deed was given effect to in the revenue papers by attestation of mutation No,6434, sanctioned on 29-3-1976.
4. On 31-5-1977, Mst. Satbharai brought a civil suit to recover her full share in the land upon annulment of inheritance mutations Nos.5125, 6305 and registered gift deed dated 20-8-1975 and the consequent Mutation No,6434. To the suit were impleaded Mst. Mahmood Khatoon, Khair Muhammad, Alam Sher, and Mst. Basran. Mst. Mahmood Khatoon is sister of Sher Muhammad.
5. Khair Muhammad is grandson of Mst. Mahmood Khatoon and a donee of land from her. Alam Sher is husband of Mst. Basran. Latter is daughter of Sher Muhammad. Alam Sher and Mst. Basran conceded the claim of the plaintiff Mst. Mahmood Khatoon and Khair Muhammad contested the suit. It was averred that the suit filed by Mst. Satbharai was barred by limitation; that she was estopped to sue; that the suit was collusive; that it was barred by res judicata, that the contesting defendants held the land adversely and had acquired prescriptive title to it. On merits, it was asserted that mutation of inheritance sanctioned upon death of Sher Muhammad was correctly attested. On 4-7-1977, the trial Court framed necessary issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. The issues have been correctly set out in the judgments of the lower Courts and need not be reproduced. On 16-10-1978, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It held that the suit was not barred by limitation; that estoppel was not established; that the plaintiffs suit was not collusive; that the suit was not barred by res judicata; that daughters collectively were entitled to take 2/3rd share of the estate left by their father; that gift Mutation No,6434 was in excess of the share held by Mst. Mahmood Khatoon; that the defendants did not hold the land adversely. Against the decision and decree of the trial Court, all the. Defendants preferred an appeal. It was allowed on the solitary ground of time-bar, and, the findings on the remaining issues were not touched.
6. Aggrieved of the judgment in appeal, Mst. Satbharai came up in revision to this Court. It was admitted to hearing on 14-5-1980.
7. Mst. Satbharai is reported to be dead. Her counsel did not appear. With her demise, civil revision did not abate. The death of the petitioner was no bar to decision of the civil revision on merits. Malik Muhammad Ashraf, learned Advocate representing respondents Nos.1 and 2 readily conceded that daughters of the deceased Sher Muhammad were collectively entitled to a 2/3rd share in his estate, and, allocation of shares by the Revenue Officer in the inheritance-mutation sanctioned upon the death of Sher Muhammad were incorrectly worked out. It was also admitted that death of Mst. Satbharai was erroneously assumed and the inheritance mutation incorrectly sanctioned of the land owned by her, in B favour of her sister Mst. Basran. This being so, Mst. Satbharai was a co- owner in the joint land, and, in default of clear evidence of ouster, her suit could not be found to suffer from the bar of limitation. It was not denied that issue relating to limitation was inter-woven with question of adverse possession claimed by the contesting defendants and was inextricable for a separate decision without touching the finding on issue of adverse possession. It was obvious from the impugned judgmet that learned Additional District Judge did not touch the decision on other issues including the issue relating to adverse possession on the land in dispute for a requisite period. Issue of limitation being closely linked with the issue relating to adverse possession was required to be attended to and dealt with together. Any firm decision by this Court on the point of limitation was likely to materially affect the finding recorded on adverse possession by the trial Court. C In this view, learned counsel proposed that both the issues should be dealt with together and the case remaded to the lower Appellate Court for deciding of the appeal afresh on all the issues. Apart from the above proposal, I do not think that the lower Appellate Court did a right thing in bifurcating the issue of limitation from the other material issues. Further, the lower Appellate Court did not keep in view the decided case-law touching the question of limitation in such like circumstances more particularly the case of Gul Khan v. Said Hassan Shah and others PLD 1968 Pesh.
148. But since I propose to set aside its judgment for deciding of the appeal afresh on all issues together, it is unnecessary to express finally on this point.
8. In view of the foregoing, revision succeeds. Impugned judgment and decree dated 13-1-1980 of learned Additional District Judge are set aside and the case is remanded to learned District Judge, Khushab for deciding it afresh in accordance with law, and, the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court.
9. ' Mst. Satbharai died during the pendency of the civil revision in this Court. Her legal representatives were not brought on record. She was respondent in the appeal in the lower Appellate Court. Upon receipt of the records from this Court, before proceeding to the hearing of the appeal on merits, learned District I Judge shall take the necessary steps for substitution of her legal representatives.