P L D 1959 W (PLP)

The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rajanpur, held that respondent Vmar Bakhsh was the legitimate son of Sardar Ghaus Muhammad deceased. On appeal this order was set aside by the Collector who held that respondent Umar Bakhsh was not the legitimate son of the deceased. On second appeal the Commissioner passed the following operative order :‑ "The property may be taken to stand in the name of the deceased Sardar Ghaus Bakhsh Mazari as it stood at the time of his death". Sardar Ghaus Bakhsh died on 30‑10‑55, leaving several children. Respondent Umar Bakhsh claimed to be the son of the deceased, and that his mother, Mst. Bhago, was married to Sardar Ghaus Bakhsh in 1913. The opposite party contended that respondent Umar Bakhsh is a son of Julian and was 3 or 4 years old when his mother was abducted by Ghaus Bakhsh in about 1917 and that the two were never married and there was no divorce. Umar Bakhsh produced a mass of evidence consisting of licences, copies of school certificates, letters from Sardar Ghaus Bakhsh, electoral roll of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, a few permits and a letter from one of the daughters of the deceased. The opposite party also produced a mass of evidence which included Genealogical table of Mazari Chiefs in which the name of Umar Bakhsh does not find place, photograph of a Persian couplet on the Eid Gah and D. H. O's order on the application of Sardar Mueen Ahmad Mazari asking for the birth entries of Umar Bakhsh. Judgment dated 17‑3‑38, of the Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan, was also produced in which Umar Bakhsh has been described as an illegitimate son of Sardar Ghaus Bakhsh. It would thus appear that the decision of the question of the legitimacy or otherwise of Umar Bakhsh is of a complicated nature and can appropriately be decided by the Civil Court. The question is whether m a case of this nature the old entry should continue till the matter is decided by the Civil Court. In a case reported in P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 95, there was a dispute regarding succession to Mamdot Estate. It was observed in that ruling that "the decision of the question of apparent right is one of the greatest difficulty and complexity for many reasons . . . . and its decision beyond the scope of a summary inquiry contemplated by the Land Revenue Act . . . . in inheritance case a new entry must be made . . . . We have here a case in which fiduciary possession actually exists in the shape of the possession of the Court of Wards, which, whatever entry is made in the revenue records will remain in possession until the case has been finally decided by the Civil Court. I, therefore, direct that mutation be effected in respect of rights or interests in the land of the late Nawab .. in the name of the Court of Wards, Punjab, on behalf of the heirs of the late Nawab . . " In the present case also, the property is in the possession' of the Court of Wards and, as indicated above, the questions involved are of a very complicated nature. That being so, it seems appropriate that a similar decision should be reached in this case. The result is that in modification, of the order of the Com missioner, I direct that mutation shall be effected in respect of the rights or interests in the property of the late Sardar Ghaus Khan in the name of the Court of Wards, West Pakistan, on behalf of the heirs of the deceased. A. H. Order accordingly.