1985 PLP 2848 (CLC)

The Civil Revision arises from the judgment and decree, dated 6-10-1982 of Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23-4-1981 of learned Civil Judge, Alipur, whereby the suit for declaration with possession as a consequential relief filed by Mst. Izzat and others, respondents/plaintiffs against Murad and others, petitioners/defendants, was decreed.

2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that Mst. Izzat and 4 others respondents filed suit for declaration to the effect that they being the legal heirs of Ghulam Hussain, the predecessor-in interest of the parties were owners of the disputed land and as a consequential relief they prayed for possession of the suit land. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit by raising preliminary objections and denying the averments of the plaint. On the pleadings, the following issues were framed: ISSUES: (1) Whether this suit is not maintainable in its present form? O.P.D. (2) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued? If so, what is the correct valuation? O.P.D. (3) Whether the pedigree table as given in para. No.1 of the plaint is incorrect? If so, what is the correct pedigree table? O.P.D. (4) Whether the plaintiffs are the heirs of Ghulam Hussain deceased and are entitled to inheritance left by him? If so, in what shares? O.P.P. (5) Whether the defendants have become the owners of the suit land through adverse possession for a period of more than 12 years? O.P.D. (6) Relief. The trial Court found issues Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of respondents and consequently declaring the respondent entitled to 17/24 share of the property of Ghulam Hussain deceased as his legal heir, and granted decree for joint possession of the suit land as a consequential relief. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/defendants filed an appeal which was entrusted to Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same on 6-10-1982. Hence this revision.

3. Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs on the point of limitation. He explained that the mutations of the inheritance having been entered in the year 1964, the suit for declaration of the respondents/plaintiffs could be filed within 6 years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, therefore, the present suit which was filed on 18-2-1976 was barred by limitation. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him for the reasons that since the suit for declaration pertains to inheritance wherein as a consequential relief, the possession of the suit land has also been prayed for, therefore, the suit for the purpose of limitation has to be treated as a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance and as such Article 120 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable. It is remarkable that the plea of limitation was neither taken in the written statement nor any issue of limitation was framed in the suit. I have gone through the impugned judgments in the light of the material available before me. I find that both the Courts have applied their mind to the legal and factual aspects of the case and have given sound reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them and as such no exception can be taken.

5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed in limine. A.A. Revision dismissed.