1999 PLP 1328 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 14-11-1996 whereby learned Judge of the High Court dismissed in limine the revision petition filed by the petitioner and thus refused to interfere in the judgment of the appellate Court decreeing the suit filed by Mst. Rasoolan Bibi, respondent No.3.

2. Mst. Rasoolan Bibi respondent No.3 had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief with the assertion that the suit land was owned by Ghulam Qadir, her father, who had died and mutation of inheritance No.668 dated 30-4-1965 was attested legally in favour of his legal heirs including herself. Thereafter, her mother namely Naziran Bibi contracted second marriage with one Jahana and settled in his house alongwith the plaintiff and other children from Ghulam Qadir. It was also asserted that three sons were born from her mother from the second marriage who are the present petitioners. These petitioners, in collusion with Naziran Bibi and Revenue Authorities got attested a Mutation No.866 dated 28-4-1979 in their favour regarding the property inherited by her out of the estate of Ghulam Oadir at the time when she was minor, without any friendly advise and hence this gift mutation to the extent of her share which she inherited after the death of Ghulam Qadir is illegal, against facts, void, ineffective upon her rights and liable to be cancelled. She further alleged in the plaint that the property is in her possession and she has raised construction over, a part of the disputed land and her husband is cultivating the same.

3. The petitioners contested the suit, inter alia, with the contention that Mst. Rasoolan Bibi, plaintiff/respondent No.3 is not in possession of the suit property and suit was otherwise incompetent in its present form and was also barred by time.

4. Learned trial Court, after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence, dismissed the suit mainly on the ground of limitation which was subject-matter of Issue No.2. On appeal, this finding was reversed and the appeal was accepted and the revision of the petitioners failed which led to the filing of the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the suit was rightly held to be barred by time as it was not filed within time after obtaining majority. This plea has been repelled by the learned Judge of the High Court as well as by learned appellate Court. The mutation was attested on the basis of a gift, validity of which was challenged on the ground that a gift obtained from a minor is void and unlawful in the eye of law and no rights came to vest in the petitioners on the basis of the alleged gift or the mutation got attested on the basis of said transaction. Such a transaction made by a minor cannot be rectified after attaining majority in view of the law laid down by this Court in the Chairman, District Screening Committee, Lahore and another v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi (PLD 1976 SC 258). Moreover, respondent No.3/plaintiff is in possession of other property in the Khata as co-sharer and, therefore, being a co sharer in the Khata no limitation would run against her, specially when the case of the plaintiff/respondent No.3 is that the cause of action accrued to her at the time of denial of title which ,occurred one week before filing of the suit. It is well-settled that wrong mutation confers no right in the property as Revenue Record is maintained only for the purpose of ensuring realisation of land revenue and a co-sharer can file a suit for declaration due to denial of rights by the co-sharer and the limitation would start in such cases on the denial of title, Learned counsel was unable to meet these findings.

6. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of High Court. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./R-27/S Leave refused