SHAHZAD HASSAN PERVEZ, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).- Mr. Muhammad Din died in the year 1990 leaving behind 4 daughters and heirs of 5th daughter. One Muhammad Bashir son-in-law of the deceased pursued the proceedings of inheritance mutation which was sanctioned on 6.9.1991. According to the mutation order, 2/3rd share of the deceased was alienated in favour of his surviving daughters and heirs of die 5th predeceased daughter and the remaining l/3rd to the heirs of, as recorded in the mutation order, his predeceased sisters.. Muhammad Sharif, the surviving son of real uncle of the deceased, filed an appeal on 29.10.1995 against the order of mutation dated 6.9.1991. The appeal was accepted and the A.C/Collector observed that "the successors of the predeceased sisters are not entitled to inheritance of Muhammad Din deceased. Admittedly, the appellant is the son of the real uncle of Muhammad Din deceased. He is entitled to the residuary under the Islamic Law."
2. In the proceedings of appeal before A.C/Collector, evidence of existence of one of the two sisters of the deceased namely Mst. Mehtab Bibi, in the form of certified copy of the death register wherein it was recorded that Mst. Mehtab Bibi died on 12.2..1991, was produced. The said documentary proof of existence of Mst. Mehtab Bibi at the time of death of Muhammad Din was not relied upon by the appellate Court on the following grounds:-- "Mst. Mehtab Bibi died on 12.2.1991 but his death was reported on 15.2.1992. The impugned mutation was sanctioned on 6.8.1991. This means that the entry in the Death Register was made after the attestation of the impugned mutation. This shows the mala fide of the successors of Mst. Mehtab Bibi. So far as the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, it is for the respondent to approach the civil Court to prove that Mst. Mehtab Bibi died after the death of Muhammad Din deceased."
The A.C/Collector relied upon the pedigree table drawn by the Revenue Officer on the mutation sheet wherein it was mentioned that Mst. Barkat Bibi and Mst. Mehtab Bibi had died before the inheritance opened. The heirs of Mst. Mehtab Bibi and Barkat Bibi filed an appeal against the order of A.C/Collector, Samundri dated 13.8.1996. The grounds of appeal principally contained two issues:-
(i) The A.C/Collector was obliged under the law to admit the certified copy of the Death Register in respect of Mst. Mehtab Bibi as a genuine proof of the fact that was alive at the time of opening of inheritance. In support of this assertion Article 89 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 was cited.
(ii) The appeal before the A.C/Collector was hopelessly time barred. There was a delay of 3 years, 10 months and 6 days in filing of the same. It was contended that the appellant before the A.C/Collector had the knowledge of the contents of the mutation, when he obtained a certified copy of the Register Haqdaran Zamin relating to Khewat No. 91, 1 year, 9 months and 12 days before filing the appeal.
3. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad after giving due consideration to the above issues and other ancillary points accepted the appeal and ordered as under:- "The shares of the respective parties will be as under:-
(a) Five daughters of the deceased will be given equal share in 2/3rd of the property left by Muhammad Din.
(b) 1/3rd of the property left by Muhammad Din deceased will go to all the descendants of Mst.
Mehtab Bibi including her sons and daughters, grand-sons and grand-daughters under the Shariat Law."
4. Muhammad Sharif has tiled this revision petition against order dated 28.1.1997 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner that learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly based his judgment on the death certificate of Mst. Mehtab Bibi. The report about the death of Mst. Mehtab Bibi was made on 15.2.1992 after sanction of the inheritance mutation No. 1214.
It was an afterthought committed to substantiate the claim of inheritance of the heirs of Mst.
Mehtab Bibi with a mala fide intention. It was further averred that the Revenue Officer on the mutation sheet had recorded pedigree table which reported deaths of Mst. Mehtab Bibi and Barkat Bibi before the demise of Muhammad Din. The learned counsel of the respondents in his written arguments has reiterated the grounds which were advanced before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad.
6. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the parties. I have also very minutely gone through the contents of the impugned orders and examined in detail the foundations of the said orders. The fact that the report of the death of Mst. Mehtab Bibi was made after the sanctioning of mutation should not, in any way, constitute a ground for declaring the death certificate to be inadmissible as a proof in support of the assertion of the respondents that Mst. Mehtab Bibi was alive at the time of opening of inheritance. This inference is supported by Article 88 of the Qanoon- e-Shahadat Ordinance, 1984. Unless proved otherwise, any document, to which the public has an access in the ordinary course of transaction, issued in the manner ordinarily prescribed, has to be relied upon as a proof of existence or otherwise of something which is asserted or controverted by a party.
7. By a detailed reason, the Additional Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion that Muhammad Sharif had knowledge of the contents of the mutation order. The arguments advanced by the present petitioner before him and this Court that limitation does not run against the void order is rebutted by the authority quoted in MLD 1992 page 1280(c) which is reproduce as under:-- "Limitation rule, that a void order had to be struck down without regard to limitation, would apply to cases where a person who was adversely effected by such order did not come to know of its existence and had no occasion to challenge that order where a person had a|me to know of void order, which had adversely effected him, 'but still he did not challenge the same within a reasonable time, Courts would validly refuse to ignore such an order on grounds of leaches acquiescence or estoppel."
8. The present petitioner had knowledge of the contents of the mutation order at least a year and a half before the occurrence. The delay in filing of the appeal before A.C/Collector was not adequately explained and on this score alone, the appeal before A.C./Collector ought to have been dismissed. There exists no reason to refuse to place reliance on a certified copy of the death register in respect of Mst. Mehtab Bibi in the absence of any cogent proof to the contrary. The unfounded surmises and conjectures cannot and should not determine die valuable rights of the parties which has been the case in the outcome of the appeal before A.C/Collector. The Revenue Officer and A.C/Collector had wrongly applied die law to the facts of the case. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division rectified the wrong by modifying their orders. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner dated 28.1.1997 which is accordingly upheld. Resultancy, the revision petition is dismissed.