Asal Janan & others vs Zareef Khan & others
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision against concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petitioners sought to challenge land mutations from 1922 and 1927, claiming inheritance rights through their mother, Mst. Sabardana, whom they alleged was the daughter of Ganj. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners sufficiently proved their lineage to establish inheritance rights and whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to prove their mother was the daughter of Ganj, as the documentary evidence (Exh. PW-3) was inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, due to lack of proper certification. Consequently, the claim of inheritance failed, rendering the suit time-barred. The Court affirmed the principle that while legal heirs become joint owners upon the death of a propositus, the benefit of inheritance-based limitation exceptions only applies if the claimant successfully proves their status as a legal heir. Absent such proof, the bar of limitation applies to challenges against long-standing mutations.
- Does the mere assertion of an inheritance claim automatically exempt a suit from the bar of limitation?
- What are the requirements for a certified copy of a public document to be admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Under what circumstances can a legal heir be ousted from property, and what is the effect of such ouster on limitation?
- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding lineage and inheritance in a civil petition for leave to appeal?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Article 87, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
AMIN-UD-DIN MEAN, J.- This Civil Petition for Leave to Appea l has been filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the judgment dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, whereby Civil Revision bearing No.81-B of 2009 filed by the Petitioners was dismissed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and one through the voluminous record of this case. In the suit filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners on 24.02.1993, the mutation pertaining to the suit property attested in the year 1922 and 1927 and mutations thereafter have been challenged. After hot contest the suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2005. The appeal filed there-against too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2008. The Civil Revision filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners was also met with the same fate vide judgment date 22.12.2014 passed by the Peshawar High Court. Although, a notice was issued by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2018 to the Respondents by noting some questions, on the presumption that, involving the matter of inheritance between the parties. There are concurrent findings of all the Courts below that though Mst. Sabardana was mother of the Plaintiffs/Petitioners but Plaintiffs could not prove that she was daughter of Ganj.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the entry no. 260 in document, Exh.PW-3, alleged copy of the register of birth entries to show that Mst. Sabardana was daughter of Ganj, who was born on 20.06.1900. It is further stated that PW-3 was produced to prove the said document. We have noticed that PW-3 is Sanitary Supervisor , DHQ Hospital. He is not holder of the record of birth entries nor did he issue the copy thereof. The alleged certified copy of the Exh. PW-3 is allegedly attested by Executive District Officer Health, Karak. It does not fulfil the requirements as under the Article 87 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984; i.e. to contain the endorsement that it is a true copy of the register of birth entries. This document does not even contain the title part of the register to show whether it is a register of birth entries, whereas no certificate is available of this document by the person issuing the certified copy that it is a true copy of document in his custody . Same is the position of PW-3 who is irrelevant person as admitted in his cross-examination. Therefore, this evidence is not sufficient to hold that Mst. Sabardana was daughter of Ganj against the concurrent findings recorded by the three Courts below . The other entries that the learned counsel for the Petitioners has relied on are the disputed mutations which were even cancelled subsequently . We have noted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the Courts below .
The learned counsel for the Petitioner could not show that the same are against the admissible documentary evidence available on the file.
4. So far as period of limitation for filing a suit is concerned, if the claim of the Plaintif fs/Petitioners is on the basis of inheritance then this Court is conscious of the principle that at the time of the death of propositus, all the legal heirs automatically become share-holders in the immoveable property left by propositu s, therefore, they become joint owners. For ousting any of the legal heirs, the person pressing for the bar of limitation in order to file such suit, is required to show the clear and conscious ouster of said plaintif f from the suit property . Only then, the point pressed on the basis of limitation can be considered by the Courts, in case of matter of inheritance. In case subject matter of a suit is pleaded to be of inheritance is not sufficient to give the benefit of law of limitation as noted supra to the plaintif f unless he is able to prove that the matter pertains to inheritance. In the instant case, there are concurrent findings of the three courts below that the Plaintif fs/Petitioners failed to prove that their mother was daughter of Gunj and entitled to inherit from the legacy of Mst. Lota, as pleaded in their case . Therefore, it is not a case, of inheritance and the bar of limitation is fully applicable. Hence, the suit was barred by time as mutation attested in the year 1922 and mutation attested thereafter was challenged in a suit filed on 24.02.1993.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners failed to make a case for grant of leave. Therefore, the instant petition is dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Ameer Bahadur and others 2023 PLD Peshawar 12
- HAYAT KHAN Versus GUL REHMAN 2021 CLC 1506
- Abdul Wahid Jehajo vs Punhoon 2022 CLC 1386