' Instant Civil Revision is directed against the order, dated 13-44983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 11-7-1979 of Civil Judge, Narowal dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that one Noor Elahi was owner of the suit property. On his death 1/2 share of it devolved upon his brother Muhammad Siddique and the other half fall upon his daughters Mst. Noor Zainab and Noor Fatima. Later on Muhammad Siddique sold entire property in favour of defendant/respondent No,1 Ghulam Rasool vide sale deed, dated 7-6-1962 and also executed a rent note, dated 3-7-1976 in favour "of Ghulam Rasool.. Subsequently Ghulam Rasool filed an application for ejectment against the legal heirs of Muhammad Siddique. On coming to know about the said '" ejectment petition the plaintiffs/petitioners filed the instant suit for declaration to the effect that they being owners of 1/2 share in the suit property the alienation of their share be declared illegal and void. The suit was resisted by defendant/ respondent No,1 whereas defendants/ respondents Nos.2 to 11 filed their consent written statement.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the suit is within time? O.P.P.
(2) Whether form of the suit is correct? O.P.P.
(3) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? O.P.D.
(4) Whether the suit is collusive with defendants Nos .2 to 11? O. P . D.
(5) Whether plaintiffs are estopped to bring the suit by their conduct? O.P.D.
(6) Whether., plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property to the extent of one-half as being the property of their deceased father? 0 P P
(7) If issue No,6 is, proved, then whether the sale-deed in dispute in favour of defendant No,1 to this extent is illegal, null and void and without authority and as such is not operative against the rights of the plaintiffs? O. P. D.
(8) Relief.
4. In support of their stand plaintiffs/ petitioners examined P. W.1 Noor Zainab, P.W.2 Mukhtar Ahmad and' P.W.3 Muhammad Safdar. They also brought on record documents Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.5. In rebuttal defendant/respondent No,1 examined D.W.1 Abdul Rasheed, D.W.2 Muhammad Yousaf and appeared himself as D.W.3.
5. After going through...The evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 11-7-1979. The plaintiffs/petitioners felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and assailed the same by way of appeal which was ,dismissed on 13-4-1983.
Hence the instant Civil Revision.
6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Courts below have non- suited them on the ground of limitation as will as estoppal. He contends that Courts below could not non-suit them on the said grounds. While elaborating his contention, he submitted that as per findings on issue No,6 they have been held to be owner of 1/2 share in the suit property along with Muhammad Siddique. According to law possession of one co-sharer/co-owner is deemed to be possession of all other co-owners, hence the plea of limitation that suit was barred by limitation is without any foundation and placed reliance on Ghulam Ali and others v. Ghulam. Sarwar and others PLD 1990 SC 1 and Suleman Shah and others v. Nassarullah and othirs 1999 MILD 249. He further argued that question of stopple being correlated with limitation, the same also looses its force. He, thus, submits that both the Courts below have not exercised the jurisdiction so vested in accordance with law and impugned judgments and decrees also suffer from misreading and non reading of evidence as such civil revision be accepted and by setting aside the judgments and decrees of Courts below, the suit of plaintiffs/ petitioners be decreed.
8. Conversely the impugned judgments and decrees have been supported by the learned counsel for defendant/respondent No,1.
9. The only point which requires determination in the instant civil revision is if the Courts below were justified in non suiting the petitioners on the ground of limitation. Admittedly vide issue No,6 it has been held by the Courts below that the plaintiffs/petitioners are owners to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit property. This being the factual position, the possession of a cosharer/co-owner shall be deemed to be possasion of all other co-sharers, as such plea of limitation that suit was barred by time shall be without foundation. Reliance is placed on PLD 1990 SC 1 and 1999 M LD 249 (supra). The question of estoppal is co-related with the question of limitation which accordingly also looses its force.
10. In the light of facts sated above it is held that both the Courts below have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. Accordingly revision petition is accepted and the judgments and decrees, dated 11-7-1979 and 13-4-1983 passed by the Courts below are set aside and suit of plaintiffs/petitioners is decreed, as prayed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.