' Respondents No,1 and 2 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No,3. It was stated in the plaint that Tagia son of Muhammad was the last male owner of the suit land and was survived by the petitioner as son and the said respondents as daughters; that Tagia died in the year 1954. The petitioner, however, manered to get a Mutation No,539 attested on 22-6-1954 in his favour to the exclusion of the said respondents; that when they acquired knowledge of the said mutation they filed proceedings in the revenue hierarchy for relief, whereupon a mutation of correction No,184 was attested on 31-7-1985 but the Additional Commissioner cancelled the same in appeal directing the parties to go to the Civil Court. The petitioner filed a written statement and stated that the said respondents are not his sisters. Issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the said respondents vide judgment and decree, dated 31-7-1989. An appeal filed by the petitioner was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan who dismissed the same on 6-2-1990.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence on record to support the plea of the respondents-ladies that they are daughters of the said Tagia. Further contends that the suit having been brought after 30 years after attestation of the mutation was barred by time.
Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with the Civil Revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that after coming up with a denial of the relationship alleged by ti.e respondents-ladies with Tagia, the petitioner sought to lead evidence to the effect that coincidentally father of the respondents ladies also happens to be one Tagia son of Muhammad but that he was some other Tagia. Learned counsel for the respondents rightly contends that such a plea was not taken in the written statement and such evidence on the same has rightly been ignored.
4. I find that sufficient evidence has been led by the said ladies to prove that they are the daughters of Tagia. It is true that the ladies are not mentioned as such in pedigree-table for the year 1974-75 (Exh.D.2) but nothing turns on the said omission as even in these days and times when the ancient custom stood dead and buried, it is not a practice to mention the names of female decedent in the pedigree-table prepared by the revenue officials. However, the evidence in the form of Amir Muhammad P.W.2 is very important. This witness is admittedly the son of real brother of the said Tagia and has stated on oath that the respondents ladies are his daughters.
Nothing has been suggested to him as to why would he make a false statement. On the other hand I find that it has been suggested to him that Mst. Jantan respondent is married to his brother to my mind instead of derogating anything from his statement the said fact further adds to the relevancy of the statement of the said witness under Article 64 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Similarly P.W.1 is also from the tribe of the deceased. He was aged 60 years on 24-1-1989 when his statement was recorded, and he stated on oath that he knew Tagia and that the said ladies are his daughters. He has also stated the names of the brothers of Tagia. Nothing much has been brought out in his cross-examination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that sons of the two ladies entered the witness-box, rather Rab Nawaz, P.W.3 son of Mst. Jantan deposed as their attorney. Relying on the case of Shah .Nawaz and another v. Nawab Khan PLD 1976 SC 767) urges that it will be deemed that the respondents ladies did not enter the witness-box and the statement of their attorney P.W.3 is to be excluded. The argument is misconceived on two counts. First, the age of P.W.3 is stated to be 48 years on 24-1-1989. Tagia is stated to have died in the year 1954. He was, thus, quite of age in the lifetime of Tagia and is a competent witness in his own rights. Second, the said case of Shah Nawaz was decided on the principle that a party may enter the witness-box through an attorney but if the attorney shows ignorance to material questions then his statement cannot be said to be a substitute for the statement of a party. I have gone through the statement of P.W.3 and I find that he answered all the questions put to him in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination and did not express ignorance as done by the attorney in the said case of Shah Nawaz Khan.
6. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is the case of the respondents ladies that the acquired knowledge of the mutation about 2-1/2 years prior to the institution of the suit. Besides in view of the finding that the parties are brother and sisters, they are Muslim Law co-heirs and shall be deemed to be in joint possession of the suit land. There is no question of the suit becoming barred by time. Reference be made to the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1). No other point has been urged. No grounds have been made out to enable this Court to interfere with the impugned judgments and decree in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout.