P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Inheritance‑Mutation sanctioned by Assistant Collector need not be set aside, if complicated questions of fact and law are involved‑Aggrieved party may seek his remedy in civil Court. Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Petitioners. Respondent in person. This order will dispose of the four Revision Petitions Nos. 204, 205, 206 and 207 of 1962‑

63. The facts briefly are as follows :‑ The dispute relates to the inheritance of considerable landed property of Sultan Ali Ranjha who died on 21‑12‑1959. He owned land in four estates, namely, Bhabra, Dingranwala, Wan Miana and Bucha Kalan, District Sargodha. Four separate mutations were accordingly entered and the Assistant Collector, Bhalwal, vide his order dated 22‑12‑1960, passed on mutation No. 4337 of village Bhabra, decided the inheritance of the deceased in accordance with Shariat assuming him to be a Sunni. An objection at that time was taken by the respondent Mohammad Aslam, son‑in‑law of the deceased, that the deceased was a Shia and the mutation should be decided in accordance with the Shia Law. The Assistant Collector over‑ruled this objection. In appeal the Collector set aside the order passed and directed a further enquiry on the issue whether the deceased belonged to the Shia or Sunni faith. The learned Commissioner in appeal has maintained this order. Four revisions have now been filed. The main points urged before me by Khawaja Abdur Rahim learned counsel for the petitioners are firstly that the appeal to the Collector was time‑barred having been preferred on 16‑6‑1961, 51 months after the order passed by the Assistant Collector, and there were no cogent legal reasons for admitting the appeal. The only ground given was that the respondent was busy in the murder case of his wife and could not for that reason prefer an appeal. This would not be a sufficient ground under the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was not necessary for the respondent himself to prosecute the appeal in person and he could either have engaged an Advocate for the purpose or given special power of attorney in favour of someone else. The second point taken up before me is that normally in Pakistan the presumption would be that the deceased belonged to the Sunni faith and it would be for the person who contests it to prove to the satisfaction of the Authority concerned that he professed the Shia tenets of Islam. My attention in this connection has been invited by the respondent to certain statements made by the deceased daughter of Sultan Ali Ranjha asserting that she and her father professed the Shia faith. This is an admission in favour of one‑self and in the absence of any independent and conclusive evidence to support I would be reluctant to rely on it. In any case the issue is a complicated one of the fact and law and it would be contrary to the decisions of the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue that any such issue should be taken up for decision by the revenue authorities when dealing summarily with mutation proceedings. This is really a matter for adjudication by the Civil Courts where legal issues will be framed and the parties allowed to lead evidence examine, cross‑examine and re‑examine witness and then come to a proper finding. During the course of a summary inquiry it would be incorrect to probe into the matter any further than what the Assistant Collector did. It was thus not in accordance with the decision of the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue to direct a further inquiry into the matter. The decision arrived at by the Assistant Collector was quite proper and should be maintained. I would accordingly accept the four revision petitions set aside the orders passed by the learned Commissioner and the Collector and maintain that of the Assistant Collector leaving it to the aggrieved party to seek his remedy in a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. K. M. A. Petitions accepted.