' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.----Leave to appeal is sought against judgment, dated 28-10-1996 delivered by the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine the petitioners' Civil Revision No.2714-D of 1996, upholding the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in the suit for declaration with permanent injunction brought by the petitioners.
2. The title of the suit is reflective of the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs and reads thus:- "Suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the Sharie and legal heirs of the property measuring 69 Kanals, 7 Marlas, entered at Khewat No.109/112/124, Khatuni Nos.266 to 269 Khasra Nos.201/7-7-, 428/1-0, 433/8-0, 199/5-16, 200/4-2, 136/6-0, 440-40, 441/3-2, 443/8-0, 434/6- 0, 442/8-0, 436/8-0, plots according to Jamabandi for the year 1976-77, situated in the area of Village Dhillo Basha, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, left by Din Muhammad, after his death, mutation in the name of Gohri, widow of Din Muhammad and are rightful to receive it. They have full rights in inheritance of Din Muhammad and Mst. Gohri. The defendants have no right and concern with the inheritance of Din Muhammad and Mst. Gohri Mutation of transfer through Gift No.367 is incorrect, without facts, without authority, baseless, fraudulent, and is void, mala fide, ineffective, illegal without authority and against facts, against the rights of the plaintiff as it is liable to be cancelled. The plaintiffs and the heirs-Sharie and legal, as collaterals in regard to the inheritance of Din Muhammad. A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegal without authority cutting the trees from the land in dispute and changing the present position of the disputed land."
3. The defendants contested the suit in their written statement specifically pleading that the plaintiffs had challenged the gift deed, dated 10-10-1979 before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala under section 62 of the Lunacy Act, unsuccessfully. Din Muhammad had alienated the land in dispute to his wife in his lifetime and had also delivered its possession to her with the result that he ceased to be its owner. Their further contention was that they are legal heirs of Mst. Gohri and the transfer of the disputed land in their favour was not open to any exception.
4. The parties went on trial before the trial Court on the following issues:-- "ISSUES"
"(1) Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata due to reasons mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the written statement? OPD.
"(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD.
"(3) Whether the suit is barred under sections 42 and 56 of Specific Relief Act? OPD.
"(4) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD.
"(5) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
"(6) Whether Din Muhammad was owner of suit land at the time of his death? OPP.
"(7) Whether the gift deed, dated 10-10-1979 in favour of Mst. Gohri is ineffective, illegal, fictitious due to the reason that possession of suit land was not changed? OPP.
"(8) Whether the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the impugned gift deed? OPP.
"(9) Whether defendants are not entitled to the inheritance of land left by Mst. Gohri? OPP.
"(10) Whether Mutation No.367, relating to inheritance of Mst. Gohri is illegal, based on fraud and null and void on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
"(11) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for? OPP.
"(12) Relief."
5. The learned trial Court proceeded with the dismissal of the suit on 22-1-1994 holding that the rejection of plaintiffs' application by the District Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment, dated 3-6-1980 resulted in the gift in favour of Mst. Gohri, dated 10-10-1979 being lawful. The suit was barred by principle of res judicata and that the gift deed was executed by Din Muhammad deceased with his free consent. It was also held that suit having been filed on 15-4-1987 purportedly challenging gift deed in favour of Mst. Gohri, dated 10-10-1979 and Din Muhammad having died during the interregnum i.e. In 1981, the same was beyond time. Din Muhammad deceased was not the owner of the land in dispute and, therefore, the gift by him favouring his wife through registered deed, dated 10-10-1979, was duly reflected in the Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.I. Which shows that in Kharif 1981, Mst. Gohri was entered as owner of the disputed land with possession under the gift. The plaintiffs were not to be informed of the gift deed by the donor/deceased Din Muhammad.
6. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the findings of the trial Court in appeal brought before him by the petitioners vide his judgment, dated 23-4-1996. Paras. 9, 10 and 11 of judgment, dated 23-5-1996 read thus:-- "9 As against this the respondents based their claim on the registered gift deed which was executed in favour of their predecessor-in interest, Mst. Gohri. This had, as noted supra stood the test of scrutiny by the learned District Judge, Gujranwala in the proceedings under section 62 of the Lunacy Act.
"10 From the above it would be seen that the appellant had failed to prove that the impugned gift deed by Din Muhammad in favour of Mst. Gohri was in any way illegal and void.
"11 There is another way of looking by the controversy. In the plaint the appellants had not mentioned as to when they had gained knowledge of the impugned gift. However, Exh.D.1 which is a copy of petition under section 62 of the Lunacy Act moved before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala is dated 19-3-1980. From this it is gatherable that the appellants had acquired the knowledge of the impugned gift on 19-3-1980. The period of limitation under Article 91 is three years while period of limitation under Article 120 which in residuary Article is 6 years. But the suit was brought on 14-4-1987. As such the suit is manifestly barred by limitation."
7. Civil Revision No.2714-D of 1996 was dismissed through the impugned judgment holding that the demise of Din Muhammad having come about in February, 1981 and petitioners having not come forward to claim the inheritance after his death as also claim of Mst. Gohri being based upon registered gift deed and she having herself died in 1987, the sanctioning of the mutation in favour of her heirs did not suffer from any taint in law and the suit having been filed on 14-4-1987, was rightly held as beyond time.
8. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition and have also perused the available material with his help. He has laid challenge to the impugned judgment on the twin-ground of the gift deed, dated 10-10-1987 favouring Mst. Gohri being mala fide on the part of Din Muhammad deceased and that said transaction is ineffective against the interests of the petitioners because they were within their rights to make the suit on available grounds within six years of the date of demise of Mst. Gohri.
According to him, the petitioners continued to impress upon Din Muhammad deceased to annul the gift deed and as he had been acknowledging the same during his lifetime with the result that delivery of possession to Mst. Gohri was not simultaneous with the gift deed and, therefore, entries in Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1981 are ".. Purely immaterial."
9. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced in support of this petition by the learned counsel. It is not the case of the petitioners that their application under section 62 of the Lunacy Act was not resolved against them. The then learned District Judge, Gujranwala dismissed the same after recording the statement of Din Muhammad on 3-6-1980. This statement read in conjunction with Exh:D.2, clearly clinches the matter. Similarly, the contents of the application under section 62 of the Lunacy Act clearly bring to fore the admission of the petitioners that Mst. Gohri had been claiming herself to be the owner of the land in dispute since the date of the registered deed i.e. 10- 10-1979. Even the facts that the petitioners did not make any move for laying a challenge to the transaction/s before the appropriate Court within time, is not disputed by them. The demise of Mst.
Gohri in the year 1987 and sanctioning of the mutation of inheritance in A favour of her relatives/heirs after her demise, in April, 1987, simply support the plea of the other side that the suit was beyond time.
10. No other point was urged in support of this matter, here.
11. Not finding any force in this petition the same is dismissed and leave is refused.