2008 PLP 1700 (CLC)

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 13-5-2008 and 12-12-2005' passed by the learned Courts below respectively whereby the learned Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the respondents and decreed the suit in their favour.

2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this civil revision are that the respondents Muhammad Bashir etc. instituted a suit for declaration, stating therein that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to the inheritance of Fateh Din, their grandfather being son of Muhammad Boota. Further stated that the respondents/plaintiffs were ignored and deprived of their inheritance at the time of sanctioning the Mutation No.404, dated 15-3-1958 so the same be declared illegal, unlawful. Further stating the facts, it was averred by the respondents/plaintiffs that Suba son of Musa was owner in possession of the disputed property being share-holder who died in the year 1956 unmarried; that Sardar and Fateh Din were his real brothers and the respondents/plaintiffs are son-in-law of Fateh Din being son of Muhammad Boota, and father of the respondents/plaintiffs died within two years of the death of Suba, and the mutation in question was sanctioned in the year 1958 when the respondents/plaintiffs were minors. The suit was seriously contested by the petitioners except the defendant No.1 namely Shahab-ud-Din, one of the beneficiaries of the mutation executed in the year 1958. The other petitioners/defendants questioned the validity of the suit on the ground of limitation, and that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs at the time of division of the inheritance in 1958 was not alive. The defendant No.1 of the suit i.e. Shahab-ud-Din, one of the beneficiaries of the impugned mutation, conceded the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs at the time of filing the written statement and also stated that the respondents/plaintiffs could not be given the inheritance of Muhammad Suba inadvertently and they are entitled for the same. The learned trial Court, out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed as many as nine issues, put the case for evidence of the parties. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence and the learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the suit. The respondents being dissatisfied of the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Court after hearing the arguments of the parties finally accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs, hence this civil revision.

3. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Appellate Court seriously erred in law by setting aside the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below. Next contended that the respondents/plaintiffs could not prove his claim as stated in the plaint by any convincing evidence so the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit whereas the learned Appellate Court without' going into the merits of the case, accepted the appeal which is erroneous in law. Also contended that the mutation in question was sanctioned in the year 1958 but the same was challenged after a considerable long period, thus, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was hopelessly barred by time and this fact, while deciding the appeal by the Appellate Court has totally been ignored. Lastly contended that the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to the inheritance because of the reason that at the time of entering the mutation or division of the property, the father of the respondents/plaintiffs was not alive.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently supported the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. It was contended that the learned Appellate Court after reappraisal of all the record including the evidence, reached to a conclusion and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court so there is hardly any reason to interfere with the same. Also added to his argument that admittedly the respondents/plaintiffs are one of the legal heirs and were minors at the time of sanctioning the mutation in question so in any case they cannot be deprived of the right of inheritance.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Undeniably, the respondents/plaintiffs are one of the legal heirs of deceased Suba so they cannot be non-suited on the ground of limitation as agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is now well-settled proposition of law that in the matter of inheritance no limitation runs as regard the merit of the case, one of the defendant of the suit namely Shahab-ud-Din who is also one of the beneficiaries of the mutation dated 15-3-1958 (Exh.P.1) filed the written statement wherein categorically admitted that the respondents being the legal heirs are entitled to the inheritance of Muhammad Suba, deceased. It was also admitted in the written statement by the said Shahab-ud-Din that the respondents/plaintiffs could not be given the inheritance of Muhammad Suba inadvertently at the time of sanctioning the mutation so it is proved on record that the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Suba. The learned Appellate Court has rightly concluded after appreciating, evaluating and scanning all the evidence available on the file that the respondents/plaintiffs were minors at the time of sanctioning the mutation impugned herein. They have been condemned unheard and finally set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Even otherwise leaving all the technicalities if involved in the matter once a person/Muslim proved and declared the legal heirs of the deceased, is entitled to inherit from the legacy left by the said deceased. It has also been proved on record through the evidence that Muhammad Boota predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs died before the death of deceased Suba whereas no such explanation has been tendered in Exh. P.1 (mutation about the date of death of Muhammad Boota). In this way, the respondents/plaintiffs was not provided any opportunity of hearing and has in fact being condemned unheard. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not succeed to point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence with the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court while decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any scope to interfere with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court.

7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-332/L Petition dismissed.