1. {{URDU TEXT}} "By a person (Twelve years) When the exclusion excluded from joint becomes known to family property to the plaintff." enforce a right to share therein. {{URDU TEXT}} "There is no definition of the word "exclusion", in the Limitation Act and the question whether a person has been excluded from joint family, must depend upon the facts of the particular case. An intention to exclude is an essential element. It is necessary, therefore, for the Court to be satisfied that there was an intention on the part of those in control and possession of the joint family property to exclude the person and that exclusion was to his knowledge. One N, a member of a joint Hindu family after the death of his father and mother went to live with his maternal-uncle voluntarily. He was not turned out. But he went with the consent of the eldest male member in the joint family. He was helped by his maternal-uncle and was living in an humble way. He was not educated in the same way as the other members of the joint family but he was not dissatisfied with the conditions under which he was living. Held: that the mere fact that during the time that N was living with his maternal-uncle the members of the joint family did not subscribe towards his maintenance and marriage expenses did not prove that those in control and possession of the joint family property intended to exclude N from his share of the joint family property. It was consistent with the evidence that the members of the joint family who were in control and possession of the joint family property though willing to allow N to be maintained at the expense of his maternal-uncle never did anything to indicate to N or anyone else that they inended to exclude him from his share in the joint family property." (P. 238 C {{URDU TEXT}} ' The question of limitation, adverse possession and ouster may, in one way be disposed of with reference to recent decisions of this Court.
2. ' The main argument of the learned counsel in this behalf is that the mutation sanctioned in 1963 against the respondent and her failure to challenge it for a long period would constitute such a conduct which would render the petitioners' possession as adverse to her. In answer to the query that she having become a co-sharer immediately on the death of her father the plea of adverse possession against such a co-sharer would not be available to the petitioners, learned counsel further contended that the mutation which was sanctioned against her interest together with her conduct of not challenging the same for a very long term, would constitute her ouster and that being so the plea of co-sharership in this behalf would stand repelled.
3. ' This controversy now stands finally settled by a recent decision of this Court. It was held in Haji v.
4. Khuda Yar' (PLD 1987 SC 453) that a similar adverse entry and non-participation in the profits of the property would not amount to an ouster. While taking note of the earlier case of 'Anwar Muhammad and others v. Sharif Din and others' (1983 SCMR 622) in extenso, it was observed that "wrong mutation conferred no right in property as revenue record is maintained only for purposes of ensuring realisation of land revenue".
5. ' The suit in the said case was treated as having been "based on title and not for correction of Revenue Record". Accordingly it was not held to be a case of adverse possession and the suit was found to be within limitation.
6. ' In the case of Anwar Muhammad the defendants in an inheritance case of similar nature, having failed in the High Court their plea of adverse possession and limitation was repelled by this Court with the following statement of facts, observations and findings:- "The inheritance of Lakhwera was in dispute between the parties who are descendants from the same common ancestor. The plaintiff-respondents claimed that as heirs they were entitled to a particular share in this estate of Lakhwera and the mutations attested in 1907 and 1908 with regard to the devolution of his estate were not in accordance with the law. The petitioners resisted the claim not on the ground that the plaintiffs were not heirs of Lakhwera according to Shariat or that their shares were different from those claimed by them but on the ground that a suit for declaration was not competent as they were in possession of the suit land, and that it was hopelessly barred by time. A number of issues were framed and the two Courts dismissed the claim of the plaintiff-respondents but in second appeal it was held that the plaintiff-respondents admittedly held the land jointly with the petitioners and that their possession over the land was through their co-sharers and the declaration of the property could be obtained by them and the Revenue Record had to be consequently corrected to reflect it."
7. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the point taken up earlier. His insistence is that in the Bahawalpur State before the enforcement of the Land Revenue Act, as the Settlement record shows, the settlement with regard to the payment of land revenue was made with those persons who were in cultivating possession over the land excluding altogether others who were out of such possession. It is contended that when Lakhwera died the petitioners were in possession of the land and were so recorded excluding the plaintiff-respondents. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioners wants to transform into principle f inheritance. Such a claim is based neither cm nor on Shariat. What law prevails in the matter of preparation of Revenue Record or what practice is followed by the officers cannot be determinative of the devolution of the estate of deceased person. It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents were the heirs of Lakhwera and entitled to inherit in the same manner as the petitioneRs, The land being joint there was no question of their remaining out of possession or the suit being time-barred. The possession of the one co-sharer is for the benefi of all the other co-sharers' and a co-sharer deemed to be in possession through his other co-shareRs, Simply because the mutations were attested in 1907 or 1908 does not bless the transaction with sanctity. These mutations conferred no right in the property and are at best arrangements made on the fiscal side for ensuring realization of land revenue and ensuring the correctness of the Revenue record for that purpose." (Underlining is ours). {{URDU TEXT}}