1994CLC225 (PLP)

LO.R. No. 403 of 1991, decided on 30th August, 1992. ‑‑‑‑S. 164‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Dispute relating to inheritance‑‑‑Petitioners claiming to be purchasers of land in question and their suit pending adjudication against sanctioned mutation‑‑‑Mutation was also challenged before Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Both the parties had stated at the bar that they had no objection if revision was disposed of in a manner that possession of parties was not disturbed and mutation already sanctioned would not be affected till the decision of civil suit‑‑‑Prayer of parties was acceded to and orders were passed accordingly. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhary for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Adrees for Respondents Nos.l and

2. Subtain Akhtar for Respondent No.3. Precisely, on the death of Sardar Ahmad his inheritance was mutated in favour of his widow Mst. Maryam Begum respondent No

3. That order was challenged by respondents Nos.l and 2 on the ground that Mst. Maryam Begum was not the sole heir of last incumbent. They were also entitled to get share from the inheritance of the deceased being his cousins. The AC/Collector remanded the case on 25‑2‑1990 and Revenue Officer was directed to sanction mutation afresh in accordance with law. On remand, the AC‑I/Tehsildar vide order dated 26‑3‑1990 sanctioned mutation in a manner that Mst. Maryam Begum was given 1/4 share and respondents 1 and 2 were given remaining 3/4 share as residuaries. The present petitioners claiming to be purchasers of the suit land filed civil suit challenging mutation passed in favour of Mst. Maryam Begum and obtained a declaratory decree. During the proceedings of the suit the respondents Nos.l and 2 presented an application for impleading them as party to the suit which was rejected. Therefore, they went in appeal before the District Judge but failed. Thereupon respondents 1 and 2 filed an application under section 12 (2) of C.P.C. before the Civil Court in which status quo order has been issued. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the AC/Collector, Khanewal against the sanction of Mutation No.727 who vide order dated 16‑5‑1990 accepted the same and directed the Revenue Officer to sanction the mutation in terms of decree passed by Civil Court. That order was assailed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who vide order dated 15‑11‑1990 accepted the same and re‑instated the order of mutation dated 26‑3‑1992. Hence this revision petition. 2. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders. Both the parties have stated at the bar that they have no objection if the instant revision petition is disposed of in a manner that possession of the parties is not disturbed and the mutation already sanctioned will not be affected till the decision of the Civil Court. The prayer of the parties is acceded to and orders accordingly. AA./520/R Order accordingly