1995 PLP 380 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 45 & 53‑‑‑Mutation of inheritance depriving daughter of deceased land owner from her share of inheritance‑‑‑Relationship of such daughter having been admitted with deceased, no intricate or difficult question of law or title was involved, necessitating to refer parties to Civil Court‑‑‑If there was any private settlement between parties, of which no proof had been provided by beneficiaries (sons) onus was on them to go to Civil Court and get the same established‑‑‑Controversy in case was not one where entries in successive Jamabandis would take the mutation (proposed to be entered on basis of admitted facts) out of jurisdiction of Revenue Court. Mian Saeed Ahmad for Petitioners. Mehr Haq Nawaz for Respondents. One Karim Bakhsh died on 16‑10‑1948. His Inheritance Mutation No.2859 was sanctioned on 11‑11‑1948. In that mutation the property was transferred to the sons only and the daughter of the deceased was deprived of her share. The sons are represented by the petitioners and the daughter by the respondents.

2. The respondents went in an appeal to the Collector who dismissed it on 26‑8‑1989. They went to the Additional Commissioner in a revision petition which was accepted on 12‑2‑1990. This order has been impugned here.

3. The most important fact in this case is that the petitioners do not deny that the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest/mother Mst. Saeeda Begum was the daughter of the deceased Karim Bakhsh. A `SHAJRA NASAB'prepared on the mutation also shows Saeeda Begum as daughter of Karim Bakhsh alongwith his three sons. After recording of this fact on the mutation it is surprising that the daughter Saeeda Begum had been deprived of her share under the Shariat Law, which had been enforced before that date. It is established law that any mutation not attested on the basis of Islamic Law of inheritance is ab initio void. And if a mutation is ab initio void it cannot become valid merely with the passage of time.

4. Since the petitioners do not deny the relationship of father and daughter between Karim Bakhsh and Saeeda Begum, the provisions of section 45(a) are also attracted to this case. This fact being an agreed fact the subsequent periodical record as well as the record of rights can be corrected under section 45(a).

5. This case does not involve an intricate or difficult question of law or title, and, therefore, there is no need to refer it to the Civil Courts. If there was any private settlement between the parties, of which no proof has been provided by the petitioners, the onus is on the petitioners to go to a Civil Court and get it established there. As it is, it is the petitioners and not the respondents who should have been asked to go to a Civil Court. The present case is not one where entries in successive Jamabandis would take the mutation out of the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts, for the reasons given above.

6. I would, therefore, reject the petition. A.A./16/R Petition rejected.