IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.- The relevant facts are that Mehr son of Ahmad after creation of Pakistan settled in village Vindala Dyal Shah, Tehsil Ferozewala. District Sheikhupura. He filed claim for land abandoned by him in India and was allotted land against his claim verified through RL-II No. 227. Bhudha, his other brother, got land allotted in Chak No. 10/l-L, Tehsil and District Okara.
Mehr died and mutation No. 90 of his inheritance was sanctioned on 12.2.1961. The petitioners filed audit for declaration to the effect that the mutation is illegal, fraudulent and they have been wrongly and illegally excluded from the inheritance. The suit was contested by the respondents No. 1 to 6, 9, 13, 18 to 20 and 22. The trial Court accordingly framed following issues:- "1. Whether impugned mutation dated 22.2.1961 is result of fraud, misrepresentation and same is ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is answered in affirmative then whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property registered sale-deed dated 25-3-76 and mutation No. 1065 dated 18-6-76 in the name of Muhammad Ramzan deceased the predecessor of the defendants is illegal, without lawful authority and the same is void, ineffective and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs hence the same are liable to be cancelled? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
4. Whether the suit has been properly valued, if not then what is the correct valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? O.P. Parties.
5. Whether the suit is barred by time?
6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
7. Whether the court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file this suit? OPD
9. Whether the suit is fixed on collusion and mala fide? OPD
10. Whether the defendants are bonafide purchasers for consideration without notice? OPD
11. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own acts and conducts to file this suit? OPD
12. Relief."
2. The plaintiffs examined Muhammad Saleem as PW1, Muhammad Ibrahim as PW2, Barkat Ali as PW3, Saeed Ahmad as PW4, Abdul Majid as PW5 and Muzaffar Ahmad, plaintiff No. 2, appeared as PW6. The respondents examined Riaz- ur-Rahim as DW1, Muhammad Yousaf as DW2 and Muhammad Siddique as DW3. The trial Court after hearing the arguments decided issues No. 1, 2 and 5 against the plaintiffs, issue No. 7 was decided against the defendants and issue No. 10 was decided in favour of the defendants while issues No. 4, 6, 8, 9 and I0 were not pressed.
In view of the above findings the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.1 I.I992, which was assailed through an appeal before the First Appellate Court, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.1994. Now this revision, which was admitted to hearing and notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents No. I to 6, 8, 9, I3, 14 to 27 have appeared and contested the revision.
3. . The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Mst. Hurmat Bibi was the daughter of Muhammad Bux and not of Mehr. It was explained that Mst. Mehran wife of Mehr was earlier married to his brother Muhammad Bux alias Mandha from her she had two children namely, Hamayat Ali and Mst. Hurmat Bibi and after his death she was married to Mehr and from him she had only one daughter namely Fazal Bibi, who died during the life time of Mehr and was represented by Mst. Maqbool begum and Ms. Iqbal begum, respondents No. 6 and 7 respectively. It was argued that this fact was provide by the evidence and particularly statements of PW2 and PW3, who had the special knowledge being sons of Maula Bux, brother of Mehr and about 80 years old and there was no rebuttal to this evidence. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat order section 50 of the Evidence Act) and relief on Saeed Ahmad Vs. Mahmood Ahmad (PLD 1968 Lahore 520), Ghulam Muhammad Vs. Sher Dil (PLD 1967 AJ&K 26) and Mst. Baigan and others Vs. Muhammad Anwar and others (1992 ALD 463). It was argued that the land .Was allotted in the name of Mehr on 2.12. 1954 while the same was confirmed in his name in lieu of the land abandoned by him in India on 2.5.1955 while he died on 2.12.1955, therefore, the matter was to be dealt with by the revenue authorities under the normal law and not under Settlement laws. It was submitted that this plea is supported by the fact that mutation No. 90 dated 22.2.1961 was sanctioned by the revenue authorities. It was, therefore, maintained that the civil Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit of the petitioners. The learned Counsel in this behalf has referred to Mst. Ghulam Fatima Vs. Muhammad Hussain and 5 others (PLD 1976 SC 729), Syed Ali Moazzam Vs. M.A Effandi and others (PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 193) and Mst. Inam Hussain Bibi Vs. Muhammad Latif and 2 others (PLD 1971 Lahore 727). The learned counsel while dealing with issue No. 5 argued that the admitted position is that the plaintiffs were settled at Bahawalnagar and they could not come to know of the sanction of the mutation No. 90 on 22.2.1961 at 'Sheikhupura and the suit was be filed within 6 years of acquiring the knowledge of the sanction of the mutation. In this behalf, the leamed counsel has referred to Article 120 of the Limitation Act and relied on the cases repotted as Muhammad Yousaf through his L.Rs. And others Vs. Noor Din and others (1993 MLD 763), Muhammad Sarwar, etc. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Consolidation)
Settlement Commissioner (Lund) etc. (1978 SC MR 272), Amir Jan and others Vs. Gul Nawaz (1992 MLD 2531). Jalla Vs. Muhammad Din and others (1992 ALD 35) and Ahmad Khan and another Vs. Zahur Ahmad Khan Tareen and 7 others (PLD 1986 Lahore 184). It was argued that the impugned mutation was void, therefore, there is no limitation to setaside a void order or proceedings, In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to Mst. Jafmat Bibi Vs. Muhammad Yaqoob and 2 others (1989 ALD 283) and Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others T's. Punnu Khan and others (1986 SCMR 962).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction because the agricultural land became part of the Compensation Pool on 15.4.1959 when notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was issued. It was argued that the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima (Supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is clearly distinguishable as in that case allottee died in 1964 after the land was permanently settled on him. The learned counsel added that the case in hand would be covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Mst. Maryam.. Bibi and 13 others Vs. Mst. Mumtaz Begum and 4 others (1981 SCMR 208), Ch Rehmat Ali Vs. Haji Jan Muhammad and others (1983 SCMR 1109) and Ahmad Din 1's. Muhammad Shaft and others (PLD 1971 SC 762). It was argued that it was a case not of inheritance, therefore, the civil suit was not competent. The inheritance of the deceased Mehr was to be decided under paras 46 and 46-A. It was added that the limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act starts when the right accrues. It was added that in this case right accrued the moment the mutation was sanctioned. It was added that the defendants No. 24 to 27 and 28 to 30 were impleaded on 24.1.1990. Therefore, the suit against them was all the way time-barred. It was maintained that the suit against them would be deemed to have been instituted on the day -they were impleaded. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to Muhammad Khan Vs. AbduI Khaliq Khan (PLJ 1980 SC 458). It was added that the remedy available to the plaintiffs was application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 at the relevant time, which they did not avail for the reasons best known to them otherwise the mutation was in their knowledge, It was submitted that, however, after the repeal of the Settlement Laws the petitioners have no .Remedy.
5. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record, relevant provisions of law and precedents. I would like to deal with issue No. 7 as to the jurisdiction before deliberating on the other points and issues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid the rule in the Settlement matters in the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima (Supra). The same was reiterated in-the case of Mst. Maryam Bibi and 13 others (Supra). The relevant portion reads as under:- " Thus, the basic question to be decided is whether the succession in this case was with regard to a confirmed allotment in Pakistan or related to the right to allotment in lieu of the area abandoned in East Punjab about which the deceased right-holder held a verified claim. This matter is clinched by reference of the copy of the mutation filed before us and reproduced at page 25 of the record. The heading of this document shows tiat it is a copy from the Register of Mutations of Deceased Right- Holders and the text of the mutation sanctioned also contains a reference to the shares of the heirs and not to the confirmation of any specific land in their favour. Consequently, as the mutation related to setting the interest of the heirs in the land abandoned by the deceased right-holder, the Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities alone had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and not the Revenue and civil Courts".
The admitted position is that the land was confirmed in the name of Mehr and in any case the mutation was sanctioned after the land has been acquired by the Central Government under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 on 15.4.1954, therefore, Civil Court had jurisdiction. It seems from the judgment of the First Appellate Court that this issue was not pressed.
6. Now coming to issue No. 5 as to the limitation. Before proceeding any further it is relevant to refer to Article 120 of the Limitation Act, which reads as under:- "12.-Suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule.
Six years When the right to sue accrues".
It is clear from the column 3 that the limitation starts from the date of accrual of the cause of action. The cause of action admittedly accrued in this case on 22.2.1961 when the disputed mutation was sanctioned while the suit was filed on 22.6.1980. Therefore, the same is barred by limitation. It is relevant to mention here that even defendants No. 24 to 27 and 28 to 30 were impleaded after about 10 years i.e. 24.1.1990. The suit was rightly held time-barred, It is not possible to believe the explanation given by the plaintiffs in this behalf that since they were settled at Bahawalnagar, therefore, they could not know of the sanction of the mutation in 1961. Mehr was not a distinct relation but real brother of their ancestor Budha. There is nothing on record to show that they did not learnt of the death of Mehr. This was the basic fact which should have been proved but there is nothing on record to show that death of Mehr was concealed from the plaintiffs. Therefore, natural consequence is that they must have learnt as to the settlement of estate left by deceased Mehr. Even if Article 127 is applied still the suit was time-barred.
7. Now coming to the merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that it was proved through the evidence of PW1 to PW6 an
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this revision. The same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.