1990 PLP 629 (SCMR)

(c) Mutation‑‑ ‑‑‑Mere mutation does not confer any right. A.R.Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P.S.LA. No.982 of 1985). S.Zahid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (In C.P.S.L.A. No.988‑D of 1985). Sh.Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in C.Ps.S.L.A. Nos.982 and 988‑D of 1985). Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been ;ought in these two petitions by the petitioners against the order of the Lahore High Curt, whereby their civil revision against the order dated 27‑7‑1985 of the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, was dismissed. Since the subject‑matter of these petitions is the same, therefore, both are disposed of by this order. The parties in these petitions are the successors‑in‑interest of Rai Muhammad who died in the 1954. A substantial area of landed property owned by him was mutated in favour of the petitioners i.e. his son and daughter from one of his two wives. Mst.Begum Bibi being his another wife was disinherited. She brought a suit asking her share in the property of her husband. The suit after contest was dismissed on the question of limitation that as Raj Muhammad had died in 1954 while the suit was brought in 1976. In appeal before the Additional District Judge, who took the view that the alleged divorce of the plaintiff/appellant (respondent herein) was not proved and she being thus a co sharer, is not hit by limitation particularly when neither ouster nor adverse possession was pleaded against her and thus he allowed her appeal. Civil revision of both the petitioners before the High Court was dismissed in limine vide order dated 15‑9‑1985. We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record of the case. Both these petitions are mainly argued on the question of limitation. 'The Courts below have held that the divorce of the plaintiff/respondent was not proved and both the Courts have concurred in this conclusion in appreciation of the evidence brought on the record. The original document of divorce has not been produced before the trial Court and the only marginal witnesses in the absence of such deed could hardly he believed. Thus, she was rightly held to be a widow and as such was entitled to the inheritance of Raj Muhammad deceased as co‑sharer. The plea of ouster and the adverse possession against the plaintiff/respondent was also not proved. The defendants/petitioners in both the petitions have not picaded adverse possession against the respondent and it was the case of the respondent that she has been receiving her share of the produce and thus the possession of one co‑sharer is g deemed to be the possession of other co‑sharer. The mere mutation does not confer any right and thus she has rightly been held to be entitled to the inheritance of Raj Muhammad to the extent oh 1/8th share of his property. Under the circumstances and facts of the case we are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit in either of these petitions for consideration of this Court which, accordingly, fail and are dismissed. M.A.K./N‑205/S Petitions dismissed.