' This civil revision is directed against the order, dated 23-9-1998 passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 9-4-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot decreeing the suit instituted by respondents/plaintiffs. Ali Akbar was the owner of 1/3rd share in joint property measuring 706 Kanals, 15 Mamas as per Muation of inheritance No,433 appearing Khatas Nos. 19 to 22 situated in Mauza Masatpur, Tehsil Pasroor, District Sialkot. Ali Muhammad died in 1944-1945. His two sons Ghulam Ali and Adalat Khan were alive whereas two others sons Muhammad Ali and ' Suba had already died. The pedigree table of Ali Muhammad is relevant for the purposes of deciding this case which is reproduced here as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} Iqbal Begum, mother of the petitioners herein and Mst. Kaniz Begum respondent No,6 got 1/4th share of the. Land being daughters- of Suba Khan son of Ali Muhammad. The suit for possession was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 plaintiff Akbar Ali etc. Against the petitioniers and Mst. Kaniz Begum and Province of Punjab on 26-11-1987- in the Court of learned - Civil Judge, Sialkot, challenging the Mutation of Inheritance No,433, dated 17-4-1945 on the ground that neither under Customary Law nor under the Islamic Law the land could be mutated in the names of above- stated ladies namely Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum and if at pall they were entitled, their right stood extinguished in 1955-56 when they were married. The petitioners-defendants resisted the suit and contended that impugned mutation of inheritance was- sanctioned legally. It was admitted that both the parties being 'Jatt' by caste, were governed by the Customary Law. It was contended that the suit was barred by time and they had acquired valid title by way of adverse possession.
2. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ( 1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so its effect? OPD
(3) Whether the pedigree-table given in the plaint is correct? OPP
(4) Whether the Mutation No, 433, dated 17-4-1945 is illegal, void and ineffective upon the rights of the . Plaintiffs? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for? OPD (5-A) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD (5-B) Whether the defendants are in adverse possession of the property in dispute for period of more than 12 -ynrs? OPD (5-C) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD
(6) Relief.
3. While recording the finding on Issue No, 5, the learned Civil Judge held that the suit is not time- barred. Under Issue No,5-B, the learned trial Court held that, "So tar as the adverse possession is concerned this phenomena has become unknown in view of the decision by Federal Shariat Court."
' Under Issue No,5, the learned Civil Judge held that, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for. On the basis of finding on Issue No,5, the learned Civil Judge proceeded to decree the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs vide judgment, dated 9-4-1945. Appeal filed by the petitioners, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23-9-1998 by maintaining the finding on Issue Nos. 5, 5-A to 5-C.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that even under the Customary Law both Mst.
Iqbal Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum were entitled to inherit the property left by Ali Muhammad being the daughters of Suba Khan son of Ali Muhammad. Reliance has been placed on the Digest of Customary Law by Mr. Sir D.H. Ritigan, 30th Edition Page 285. Further contends that under mutation of inheritance in favour of Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum was sanctioned on 17- 4-1945. The suit filed by Akbar Ali etc. On 26-11-1987, was barred by Limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Further contends that Faqeer Saeen was alive at the time of sanction of the mutation and being the Lumberdar he was witness of the Mutation No, 433. Further contends that Mst. Iqbal Begum mother of the petitioner died in 1973 and Inheritance Mutation No, 844 was attested in 1973 on which respondent/plaintiff Faqir Saeen was a witness of attestation of the mutation. In this view of the matter, also the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was barred by limitation. Reliance has been placed on the case of Muhammad Ali and 25 others v. Hassan Muhammad and 6 others (PLD 1994 SC 245). Further contends that assuming that Mst. Iqbl Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum's limited interest in property had been terminated by reasons of their marriages as alleged by the respondents-plaintiffs in 1955-56. The respondent-plaintiffs under Act No,11 of 1950 became entitled to get the property of Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum were required to file the suit within 6 years of termination of their limited interests, in 1955-1956.
Therefore, the plaintiffs respodnents failing to file the suit within limitation filed the same on 26-11- 1987. Their suit was thus barred by limitation and both the Courts below fell .In error while recording the finding on Issue No,5-A against the petitioners-defendants by means of interpreting Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Reliance has been placed on the case of Amir Alan' v. Mst. Janet' (1989 SCM R 1293). Further contends that suit was filed on 26-11-1987. The judgment by the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court in the case of Maqbool Ahmad (1993 SCM R 119) became effective on 31st August, 1993, was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned Civil Judge fell in error while referring the above mentioned case by observing that the phenomena of adverse possession has become unknown in view of the decision of the Federal Shariat Court.
5. Nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of the fact that the name of the learned counsel has appeared in the cause list for today.
6. The respondents-plaintiffs have challenged the mutation which was sanctioned in the year 1945 by filing the suit on 26-11-1987. There is no cavil with the proposition that wrong mutation confers no right in the property as Revenue Record has maintaind only for purposes of ensuring the realization of Land Revenue. The learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Additional District Judge have observed that in the instant case the remedy will not be denied due to the fact that the mutation in question was sanctioned as far back as in the year 1945 because the devolution of inheritance is automatic and no authenticity of a Revenue Officer is required. The learned Civil Judge also observed that prior to 1983 the defendants were in joint possession of the property as Exh. P.2, register Haq Daran-eZamin for the years 1975-1976. The Mutation No,433 Exh. P.1 and the entries in the Revenue Recrod were unchallegned for about 42 years. It is also in the evidence by reading the Mutation Exh. P.1 that the same was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in the presence of Faqir Saeen one of the plaintiffs. It is also admitted by the plaintiffs respondent that Mst., Iqbal Begum died in the year 1973 and Mutation No'? 844 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners in which the plaintiff-petitioner being the Lambardar was attested witness, and the petitioner was treated as owner to the extent of share of Mst. Iqbal Begum in the suit. No action was taken by the respondents-plaintiffs when the suit-land was changed through Mutation No,433 in favour of Mst.
Iqbal Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum in 1945 and sanctioned inheritance Mutation No, 844 in the year 1973 in favour of the petitioner. In these circumstances a very heavy burden lay on the plaintiffs generally and particularly on Faqir Saeen and Adalat Khan who were alive at the time of sanction of the mutation to establish that they were not aware of the sanction of the Mutation No,433 and Mutation No,844. In the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76, Exh.P.4 the names of Ijaz Ahmad and Iftikhar Ahmad petitioners have been shown in column of ownership, No doubt the respondents in the plaint have asserted that cause of action accrued to them a week back when the defendant refused to accede the claim of the plaintiff but from the mutation Exh.P:5 which was attested in favour of Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum shows that Adalat Khan, Lumbardar was present when land was mutated in favour of the defendant. Similar is the position when the Mutation No,844 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on death of Mst. Iqbal Begum. The same was attested on the identification of Faqir Saeen, one of the plaintiffs on 16-8-1973. From all the above .Stated facts it is concluded that the plaintiffs were aware of the Mutation No,433 attested on 17-4- 1945 and Mutation No,844 attested on 16-8-1973. In this view of the matter suit filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs on 26-11-1987 was barred by time. The learned Civil Judge has relied on the case of Ghulam Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1). In the above mentioned case of Chulam Ali (supra) it was observed by the Hon'ble Court that the adverse entry in the Revenue Record and no participation in the profit of the property would not necessarily amount to an ouster of co-sharer as wrong Mutation could not confer any right in respect of the property. It was also observed in that context that a suit for declaration filed upon denial of the title of the co-sharer, was within time. In the present case, the land was mutated in favour of Iqbal Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum by way of Mutation No,433, dated 17-4-1945 in the presence of Adalat Khan son of Ali Muhammad, who raised no objection whatsoever in his life-time and thereafter the land was mutated in favour of the petitioners on the death of Mst. Iqbal Begum by way of Mutation No, 844 in the presence of Faqir Saeen son of Adalat Khan, therefore, it could not be said that entries in the Revenue Record in favour of Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst. Kaniz Begum and thereafter in favour of the petitioners were erroneous or were the result of some mistakes, therefore, the abovecited case of Ghulam Ali being distinguishable was not helpful to the respondents. There is another aspect of the matter, that the respondents-plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst.
Kaniz Begum were married in 1955-1956 and interest in the property on account of their marriages being the limited owners was extinguished. Under Act No,11 of 1950 the respondents-plaintiffs were entitled for the property. They were required to file the suit within 6 years of termination of their limited interest i,e, in 1952. But they filed the suit on 26-11-1987. Such suit was, therefore, barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, findings of both the Courts below on Issue No, 5-A are reversed and it is held that the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was barred by limitation. There is no need of discussing the other issues. Resultantly, this revision petition is accepted and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, dated 9-4-1995 and 23-9-1998 are set aside, and suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.