IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, HACJ 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar 
 
Civil Appeal No.97/2003 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
10.09.2002 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in 
C.R. No.507/1992) 
 
Faiz Ullah and others   
 
 
 
 
Appellants  
 
Versus 
 
Dilawar Hussain and others  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondents 
 
For the Appellants: 
 
Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For Respondents No.1,3-4: 
Barrister Umar Aslam, ASC 
 
For Respondents No.2,5-12: 
Ex-parte 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
01.09.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J.- This appeal with leave of the 
Court is directed against the judgment dated 10th September, 2002 
whereby Civil Revision No.507/1992, filed by Mst. Noor Bibi (now 
deceased), mother of the appellants, was dismissed and judgments 
and 
decrees 
of 
the 
Courts 
below 
(decreeing 
the 
suit 
of 
plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7) were upheld.  
2. 
 
The facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are 
that one Alia (in revenue record, recorded as Ali Bakhsh), who was 
the common ancestor of the parties, was owner of 218 kanals 05 
marlas of agricultural land situated in Chak No.491/GB, Tehsil 
Samundri. Upon his death, his three sons namely Imam Din, Karim 
Bakhsh and Rahim Bakhsh inherited his aforesaid property in equal 
shares. Imam Din died in the year 1922. Having no mail issue, his 
widow namely Mst. Amina Bibi, succeeded him as a limited owner 
C.A.97/03 
 
2
under the customary law prevailing at that time, for her lifetime or 
until her remarriage. She got re-married somewhere in 1935/36. Her 
re-marriage resulted into termination of her limited interest in the 
property. Mst. Noor Bibi (now deceased), defendant No.1, daughter of 
Imam Din and mother of the present appellants (Mst. Noor Bibi), 
replaced her mother with similar terms as a limited owner of the said 
property until her marriage. She got married in the year 1944-45 
which legally terminated her limited interest in the property but no 
changes in the revenue record were made in this regard. The claim of 
the plaintiffs (L.Rs. of Karim Bakhsh) through plaint was that after 
the marriage of Mst. Noor Bibi, the limited owner, the property left by 
the last full owner (Imam Din) would revert back to his actual legal 
heirs, the real brothers Karim Bakhsh and Rahim Bakhsh, (the 
predecessors of plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 6 respectively). It is 
in this backdrop, Dilawar Hussain etc. respondents herein, the 
plaintiffs of the main suit (“plaintiffs”), filed a suit for declaration 
that they, being legal heirs of Karim Bakh, along with legal heirs of 
Rahim Bakhsh (the defendants No. 2 to 6 in the main suit) 
(defendants), may be declared as owners in possession of the said 
property by updating/correcting entries of the revenue record in this 
regard. Since Mst. Noor Bibi married with Faiz Muhammad (one of 
the son of Rahim Bakhsh), the legal heirs of Rahim Bakhsh did not 
join the plaintiffs, Dilawar Hussain etc. in the suit, therefore, they 
were impleaded as defendants. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed 
by the learned Civil Judge, Samundri vide Judgment & Decree dated 
28th November, 1987 appeal where against filed by Mst. Noor Bibi, 
defendants No.2 and 4 to 6 (the son and the daughters of Rahim 
Bakhsh), was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, 
Faisalabad vide Judgment & Decree dated 23rd February, 1992 and 
concurred with the findings of trial Court. The civil revision, filed by 
C.A.97/03 
 
3
Mst. Noor Bibi alone by making her other co-appellants as 
respondents, was also dismissed by the High Court vide impugned 
judgment dated 10th September, 2002. Hence the instant appeal with 
leave of the Court granted on 29th January, 2003 which reads as 
under:- 
 
“Leave to appeal is granted to consider 
entitlement of Mst. Amina Bibi as widow of Imam Din 
to the extent of 1/8th share under the Islamic law of 
whom Petitioners are the heirs. 
2. 
Status quo as on date to be maintained by the 
parties.” 
 
 
3. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
have gone through the available record.  
4. 
 
The record shows that the legal heirs of Karim Bakh, the 
plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to7 herein) filed a suit for declaration by 
impleading Mst. Noor Bibi as defendant No.1 and legal heirs of Rahim 
Bakhsh as defendants No.2 to 6 (respondents No.8 to 12 herein) and 
alleged and claimed the suit property to be their exclusive ownership 
along with legal heirs of Rahim Bakh, defendants No.2 to 6, in equal 
shares (as sharers) by excluding Mst. Noor Bibi as being not entitled 
after termination of her limited interest. Mst. Noor Bibi (now the 
appellant) through her legal heirs, denied the allegations made in the 
plaint and claimed herself to be the exclusive owner of the entire 
property, inherited from her father. Their suit was decreed in their 
favour by Civil Judge, Samundari, Faisalabad vide judgment and 
decree dated 28.11.1987 by holding the plaintiffs and defendants 
No.2 to 6 to be the owners to the extent of their respective shares on 
termination of limited interest and by operation of law automatically 
and attestation of any mutation in this regard is not necessary. 
Besides the above, there was no specific finding regarding the 
entitlement of Mst. Noor Bibi (predecessor of appellants) and decided 
C.A.97/03 
 
4
issues No.9 & 10 in favour of plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 6 (all 
respondents herein). Similarly issue No.2 regarding limitation was 
also decided in their favour.  
5. 
 
The appeal against the judgment & decree dated 
28.11.1987 of the Civil Judge, Samundari, Faisalabad filed by Mst. 
Noor Bibi, defendant No.2 Faiz Muhammad, her husband, and the 
three daughters of Rahim Bakhsh was dismissed by the learned 
Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment & decree 
dated 23.02.1992. However, the question of limitation was 
concurrently decided in favour of the parties. The civil revision was 
filed by Mst. Noor Bibi alone. The learned Judge-in-Chambers upheld 
the concurrent findings of the two Courts below including the 
question of limitation. Perusal of the findings of all the three Courts 
below would reflect that the plaintiffs (legal heirs of Karim Bakhsh) 
and defendants No.2 to 6 (legal heirs of Rahim Bakhsh) (both of them 
now 
respondents) 
have 
been 
declared 
to 
inherit 
as 
residuaries/collaterals after termination of the limited interest of 
defendant No.1 (predecessor of appellants) but nothing specifically 
has been said regarding the entitlement of Mst. Noor Bibi.  
6. 
 
The controversy between the parties revolves around the 
inheritance of one Imam Din son of Alia (Ali Bakhsh) who died in the 
year 1922 (as appears from the inheritance mutation in the name of 
his widow Mst. Amina Bibi) when the customary law of inheritance 
was prevailing in the area. After his death, her widow Mst. Amina 
Bibi succeeded him as a limited owner as he had no male issue and 
when she got remarried (somewhere in the year 1934/35), the limited 
interest in the property left by Imam Din was transferred to Mst. Noor 
Bibi his daughter and mother of present appellants. When Mst. Noor 
Bibi got married probably in the year 1944/45 (the evidence and the 
record confirm so and are also not disputed by anyone else) her 
C.A.97/03 
 
5
limited interest in the property was legally terminated but no such 
entries were made in the revenue record and her name appears now 
as a full owner in the existing revenue record. The dispute between 
the parties starts from here.  
7. 
 
The law on the subject is very much clear that in the 
event of death or marriage of a Muslim female, having limited interest 
in the property under the customary law, the succession would be 
deemed to open on such termination in favour of all the persons who 
would have inherited the last full owner at the time of his death, had 
the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) been applicable at the time 
of his death. Even in case of death of any legal heir before 
termination of the limited interest, as stated above, succession would 
also devolve on his legal heirs to the extent of share of deceased legal 
heir. The law had also protected the shares of females who retained 
limited interest in the property will also get their sharai shares as if 
the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) was applicable at the time of death 
of last full owner. Section 3 of The West Punjab Muslim Personal Law 
(Shariat) Application Act, 1948 (“Act-IX of 1948”) which deals with 
the situation is reproduced for ready reference:-  
 
 
 
 
“3. In respect of immovable property held by a 
Muslim female as a limited owner under the 
Customary Law, succession shall be deemed to 
open out on the termination of her limited interest 
to all persons who would have been entitled to 
inherit the property at the time of the death of the 
last full owner, had the Muslim Personal Law 
(Shariat) been applicable at the time of such 
death, and in the event of the death of any of such 
persons before the termination of the limited 
interest mentioned above, succession shall devolve 
on his heirs and successors, existing at the time of 
the termination of the limited interest of the 
female, as if the aforesaid such person had died at 
C.A.97/03 
 
6
the termination of the limited interest of the 
female and had been governed by the Muslim 
Personal Law (Shariat): 
 
Provided that the share which the female 
limited owner would have inherited, had the 
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) been applicable at 
the time of the death of last full owner, shall 
devolve on her, if she loses her limited interest in 
the property, on account of her marriage or 
remarriage and on her heirs under the Muslim 
Personal Law (Shariat) if her limited interest 
terminates because of death.  
 
 
8. 
 
Since there were different laws in force in the different 
provinces of West Pakistan, a consolidated law known as West 
Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 (the 
“Act V of 1962”) was promulgated on 31st December, 1962, section 
2 whereof is the reproduction of section 2 of the Act of 1948. 
However, under section 3 of the same, the limited estates held by 
Muslim females under the Customary Law were terminated and 
section 5 thereof prescribed the procedure for the devolution of 
property on the termination of such estate more or less in the same 
manner as was provided under section 3 of the Act of 1948. The Act 
of 1962, while repealing all the previous laws and removing the 
ambiguities in the previous laws, prescribed the following procedure 
in section 5 supra for the devolution of property on the termination of 
limited interest in the property: - 
 
“5.  
Devolution 
of 
property 
on 
the 
termination of life estate and certain wills.----
The life estate terminated under section 3 or the 
property in respect of which the further operation 
of a will has ceased under section 4 shall devolve 
upon such persons as would have been entitled 
to succeed under the Muslim Personal Law 
(Shariat) upon the death of the last full owner or 
the testator as though he had died intestate; and 
C.A.97/03 
 
7
if any such heir has died in the meantime, his 
share shall devolve in accordance with Shariat on 
such persons as would have succeeded him if he 
had died immediately after the termination of the 
life estate or the death of the said legatee:  
 
Provided that the share to which a Muslim 
female holding limited estate under Customary 
law would have been entitled under the Muslim 
Personal Law (Shariat) upon the death of the last 
full owner shall devolve on her”. 
 
 
Besides the above, Act V of 1962 has also given the retrospective 
effect to the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 which even covers the 
questions and ambiguities of law of limitation in such like matters 
which will be discussed in detail hereinafter. A similar provision, 
rather in more clear words, is provided in Section 4 of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935 
(“Act VI of 1935”).     
9. 
 
A look at the above quoted provisions of law would 
simplify the question/controversy, the parties of this lis are facing. 
There is no dispute between the parties regarding their inter se 
relationship and similarly the termination of limited interest of Mst. 
Noor Bibi, as evident from the record and the same is not disputed 
between the parties that after the death of last full owner, Imam Din 
in the year 1922, his property devolved twice as a limited estate, 
initially upon his widow Mst. Amina Bibi and after her re-marriage, 
upon his daughter Mst. Noor Bibi till her marriage. Mutation of 
widow Mst. Amina Bibi is available at page-94 of the paperbook and 
entries in its last column reflect that the widow at the time of death of 
her husband was pregnant which means the daughter (Mst. Noor 
Bibi) of Imam Din was born after the death of her father. This very 
mutation was attested by Karim Bakhsh, as Numberdar of the 
village). Mst. Noor Bibi, as per mutation entries of 1934 at page-92 & 
C.A.97/03 
 
8
93 of the paperbook, succeeded to get limited interest in the property 
left by her father till her marriage. Again, it has undisputedly come 
on the record that she got married in the year 1944/45. Her marriage 
resulted into termination of her limited interest in the property. This 
termination, no doubt, was by operation of law. Here a big question 
mark would be as to whether further non-compliance of said 
termination by the concerned (the revenue authorities) would 
adversely affect the rights of all those who have suffered due to said 
non-compliance. The answer to this question would be a big “No”. 
This would also get further explanation hereinafter. 
10. 
 
The other important and legal aspect which requires 
consideration is that both the learned counsel for the parties, during 
arguments, agreed to the proposition that the provisions of Section 2-
A of the Act V of 1962 are not applicable in the facts and 
circumstances of the case. In this case, the widow of the last full 
owner Imam Din succeeded her late husband as a limited owner till 
her death or re-marriage and similarly the daughter of the Imam Din 
acquired the same limited interest in the property on similar terms 
from her mother Mst. Amina Bibi. When Mst. Noor Bibi got married 
in the year 1944/45 (as per available record and not disputed by 
anyone) her limited interest in the landed property was terminated 
and as per law the property has to revert back to actual legal heirs 
(lineals and collaterals) but such termination, as per record, was not 
incorporated in the relevant record and till filing of the suit she 
remained recorded as full owner (in the course of time, her limited 
status was changed to full owner but no explanation in this regard is 
available on the record) which even otherwise is against the law. 
According to the above quoted provisions, on the termination of the 
limited interest of Mst. Noor Bibi, the property is to be considered as 
the ownership of the last full owner Imam Din and should have to 
C.A.97/03 
 
9
devolve upon his Shari heirs alive at the time of his death and if 
anyone of such heirs has died prior to the termination of the limited 
estate his heirs shall also get the share to which their predecessor 
would have been entitled if alive. Accordingly, the limited owners 
were also held entitled to their Shari share whether alive or dead. 
Reference in this regard may be made to SUBA through his L.Rs. v. 
Mst. Fatima Bibi (1992 SCMR 1721). Thus, Mst. Noor Bibi is entitled 
only to the extent of 1/2 share as legal heir of her father (the last full 
owner) and a share from her mother probably that would also be 1/2 
from her 1/8 share. As such termination completed in the year 
1944/45 prior to the Act IX of 1948 and the succession as per 
Muslim Personal Law stood completed under Section 3 of the Act IX 
of 1948. Thereafter, nothing left to be implemented. So, the provision 
of Section 2-A and other provision of Act V of 1962 are not applicable 
to the facts and circumstances of this case.  
11. 
 
Moreover, the marriage of Mst. Noor Bibi, resulted into 
termination of the limited interest in the property held by her and as 
per the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1948, the matter reverted 
back to the year 1922, the year when the last full owner Imam Din 
died. All the persons entitled to succeed the last full owner (the 
sharers, residuaris, distant, kindred etc.) would succeed, as per their 
respective share, as if the last full owner died during the application 
of Muslim Personal Law “Shariat”. The proviso to Section 3 also 
clearly speaks of the females retaining the property with limited 
interest. They would also be entitled to get as per their ordained 
shares in the sharia. The application of above provisions of law would 
paint a picture showing Mst. Amina Bibi, the widow of Imam Din to 
get 1/8 share, Mst. Noor Bibi, the daughter, defendant No.1, was 
entitled to get 4/8 (1/2) (as she was the only daughter) and the 
remainder 3/8 would go to the brothers Karim Bakh (predecessor of 
C.A.97/03 
 
10
plaintiffs) and Rahim Bakhsh (predecessor of defendants No.2 to 6) 
as residuaries. Besides the above, the defendant No.1 (mother of 
appellants) would also inherit her mother Mst. Amina Bibi as a 
sharer. 
  
12. 
 
 Now comes the question of limitation which was very 
forcefully argued by the appellants. The acquisition of a limited 
interest and then its termination makes the actual legal heirs to 
inherit under the Muslim Personal Law and provision of Section 3 of 
the Act IX of 1948 gives inbuilt/implied retrospective effect for such 
inheritance. All the persons entitled to inherit the predecessor (who 
were alive at the time of death of the predecessor) become the owners 
to the extent of their respective shares from the date of his death as 
discussed above. It is also the established law that inheritance under 
Muslim Personal Law/Muhammadan Law opens just after the death 
of a Muslim. All the legal heirs, lineal and collaterals inherit/acquire 
to the extent of their respective shares just after the death of a 
Muslim. They all by such inheritance/acquisition become co-
sharer/co-owner in the estate left by the deceased Muslim under 
sharia. The shares of each heir/residuary are fixed and determined in 
sharia. Our law so far developed in the country is that every co-
sharer/co-owner is presumed to be in possession of every inch of the 
joint property unless the same is partitioned. Reference may be made 
to the cases of Shabla v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat (2020 SCMR  352), 
Ghulam Sarwar (Deceased) v. Ghulam Sakina (2019 SCMR  567), 
Ahmad Khan v. Abdur Rehman (2009 SCMR  191), Syed Shabbir 
Hussain 
Shah 
and 
others 
v. 
Asghar 
Hussain 
Shah 
(2007 SCMR  1884) 
and 
Mst. 
Reshman 
Bibi 
v. 
Amir 
(2004 SCMR  392). The law of the land further goes to the extent 
that no limitation runs against a co-sharer/co-owner. Reference here 
may also be made to the cases Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi 
C.A.97/03 
 
11
(2017 SCMR 1476), Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah 
and others (2015 SCMR 869), Muhammad Anwar and 2 others v. 
Khuda Yar and 25 others (2008 SCMR 905), Mst. Suban v. Allah Ditta 
and others (2007 SCMR 635), Riaz Ahmad and 2 others v. Additional 
District Judge and 2 others (1999 SCMR 1328) and Ghulam Ali and 2 
others v. Mst. Ghulam Samar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1). Whenever the 
rights of a co-sharer are infringed, by way of wrong entries or by any 
other means, he can seek the redressal by way of a suit for 
declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. When 
no limitation runs against a co-sharer/co-owner and the attestation 
of a mutation also established law of the land, is just for updating the 
revenue record and for the fiscal purposes creating no title nor is 
considered as a document of title then no question of limitation 
arises against co-sharers. The question of limitation in the matters of 
inheritance, with respect, is being misunderstood for quite some 
time. When a legal heir becomes owner and at the same time a co-
sharer in the property left by a deceased Muslim and attestation of 
mutation in this regard is also immaterial and is meant for very 
limited purposes and besides the above, possession of a co-sharer is 
considered as a possession on behalf of all other co-sharers then it is, 
at least, beyond our consumption and understanding of law of 
inheritance and the law of limitation as to how the law of limitation 
can be made applicable for disinheritance of a legally entitled person 
who becomes owner/co-sharer by operation of law. As per Para 
7.1.(v) of the Land Record Manual, recording/entering of a mutation 
of inheritance is the job of local revenue officials but with the passage 
of time it has been left to the legal heirs and the parties concerned. 
Any delay for asking for correction of entries in the record of rights is 
then attributed to the parties which is not appropriate and against 
the law. For convenience, the same is reproduced as under:- 
C.A.97/03 
 
12
 
 
“ 
… 
(v) 
It shall not be difficult for a Patwari 
(resident official) to learn in normal course 
of the occurrence of death of land-owner in 
his small circle. Mutations of inheritance in 
such case can, therefore, be entered by the 
Patwari suo motu on the basis of his 
personal knowledge without waiting for any 
formal intimation from any quarter. In 
further failure to enter a mutation of 
inheritance on the death of a resident land-
owner 
shall 
be 
construed 
to 
reflect 
adversely on the vigilance and awareness of 
Patwari and shall be taken due notice of. 
 
 
 
…” 
 
13. 
 
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the 
predecessor of plaintiffs and the defendants No.2 to 6 (now all 
respondents) became owners and co-sharers being residuaries to the 
last full owner just after the termination of the limited estate held by 
the predecessor of the appellants, Mst. Noor Bibi, in the year 
1944/45 and this termination took the matter back to the year 1922 
(the year of death of predecessor Imam Din) as per Section 3 of the 
Act of 1948, as discussed above in detail, which made them co-
sharers/co-owners since 1922. Whether non-attestation of mutation 
in their favour by the local revenue officials would make them to lose 
their legal and sharai right when they were also in possession of their 
property. As per un-rebutted evidence on the record that after 
termination of limited estate, they, by operation of law, became 
owners in possession of the property. After termination of limited 
estate, noted above, they lived upto 1967 and 1968 with the 
impression that they after such termination became owners (this has 
been alleged in pleadings as well as in evidence) but the revenue 
record was not updated by the revenue officials and the wrong entries 
of the revenue record continued in the name of Mst. Noor Bibi 
C.A.97/03 
 
13
showing her to be owner beyond her legal and sharai entitlement 
(now she is recorded as full owner to the extent of 1/3 share, held by 
her father). Whether such wrong entries would legitimize her 
excessive land beyond her entitlement? We can have a look from just 
another angle. All the parties are co-sharers since the demise of their 
propositus and are in actual physical possession of their joint 
property as per the latest entries of record of rights available on the 
record. One co-sharer is the protector of possession of all the others, 
as per established law of the land then how the question of limitation 
would come into play against the co-sharers. The law of the land, 
developed so far, is that every wrong entry in the record of rights 
gives fresh cause of action if the parties are in possession. Here in 
this case, all the co-sharers are in physical possession from day one 
what to talk of their symbolic possession. A co-sharer with symbolic 
possession even can safeguard his rights. Reliance in this regard can 
well be placed on the cases of Faqir Ali and others Vs. Sakina Bibi and 
others (PLD 2022 SC 85), Khan Muhammad through L.Rs. and others 
Vs. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others (2017 SCMR 1476) and Mst. Gohar 
Khanum and others Vs. Mst. Jamila Jan and others (2014 SCMR 
801).  So, we are of the view that all the three Courts below have 
rightly decided the question of limitation in favour of the 
plaintiff/respondents. Since the question of limitation was argued 
with great vehemence, so, an attempt to explain the same in detail 
has been made. The most of the judgments of this Court through 
which clog of limitation on inheritance matters has been imposed and 
the law of limitation have been made applicable are not regarding 
simple claim of inheritance. We have attempted to go through many 
of such judgments on this issue which, in our opinion, are 
distinguishable. The main distinction that requires to be kept in mind 
is that the case in hand revolves around the question of inheritance 
C.A.97/03 
 
14
alone and for that matter a lengthy discussion has been made above 
but the judgments being referred to and distinguished almost involve 
the issues of transfer of lands by way of sale, gift etc. by the 
predecessors themselves in their lifetimes and not challenged or 
questioned by them. The heirs, feeling themselves aggrieved, 
challenged the same by claiming their right of inheritance after a 
considerable delay and such cases were dismissed on the question of 
limitation for want of proof and justifying the delay. Yes, in such like 
cases, we can agree with the ratio laid down in the case of Mst. Grana 
through legal heirs and others Vs. Sahib Kamal Bibi (PLD 2014 SC 
167) that law of limitation involving matter of inheritance cannot be 
ignored altogether but the narrow line of distinction is that where the 
predecessor/propositus has transferred his property by way of sale, 
gift etc. in his lifetime and after his death, the legal heirs claiming 
right of inheritance regarding said property after lapse of 
considerable time by questioning such transfer cannot be ignored 
lightly. For convenience, the observations made in the above 
mentioned case is as under:- 
 
“6. 
It appears that in a suit which involves some 
element of inheritance the Courts are generally quick to 
declare that the law of limitation would not be attracted. It 
is not in all cases of inheritance that the question of 
limitation becomes irrelevant. Even in Ghulam Ali’s case 
the Court recognized that there could be exceptional 
circumstances wherein a suit based on inheritance issue 
of limitation may become relevant…” 
 
14. 
 
Perusal of this case too would reflect that certain 
transfers through registered sale deed and mutation were challenged 
after a lapse of considerable delay and right of inheritance was 
claimed. Similar is the case of Mst. Phaphan through Legal Heirs Vs. 
Muhammad Bakhsh and others (2005 SCMR 1278). Facts and 
C.A.97/03 
 
15
circumstances of the case as reflected in the judgment justify the 
application of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The case of Lal 
Khan through Legal Heirs Vs. Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs 
(PLD 2011 SC 657) is also distinguishable. The case of Atta 
Muhammad Vs. Maula Bakhsh and others (2007 SCMR 1446) also 
cannot be made basis for invoking the provisions of Limitation Act in 
the case in hand. The facts narrated in the judgment rendered in the 
case of Muhammad Rustam Vs. Mst. Makhan Jan (2013 SCMR 299) 
would justify the question of limitation but cannot be compared with 
the facts and circumstances of the present case. So, in our view, 
looking each and every case involving the question of inheritance 
with a yardstick of limitation, simply for the reason of delay, would 
not be appropriate as vested rights of people cannot be tackled so 
lightly. Each and every case requires to be dealt with according to its 
own facts and circumstances.  
15. 
 
This would also not be out of context to discuss that an 
order of this Court dated 14.11.2017 would also reflect that an 
attempt by the learned counsel for the appellants was made to 
confuse the things by arguing that the controversy in hand, in fact, 
relates to matters which falls within the purview of the Colonization 
of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (“the Act of 1912”) and as 
such the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the 
present lis. It has been noted with great concerns that this was no 
body’s case from day one. So, making altogether a new case that too, 
at this stage, is not permissible under the law. This is a simple case 
of inheritance of private land of the parties who being the owners of 
the same from day one; thus, the Civil Court has had the jurisdiction 
in the matter in hand. Moreover, neither was it a government land 
nor was any question of tenancy or lease involved in the matter. So 
the provisions of Sections 21(b) & 36 of the Act of 1912 are not 
C.A.97/03 
 
16
applicable in this case, as argued by the learned senior counsel for 
the appellants.  
16. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the appeal in hand 
is partially allowed and the judgments and decrees of the learned 
Courts below are modified accordingly. The mother of appellants 
namely Mst. Noor Bibi becomes entitled to inherit her 1/2 share from 
her father Imam Din (the last full owner) plus share from her mother 
(as discussed above) whereas the respondents (both plaintiffs and 
defendants No.2 to 6) would be entitled to inherit their predecessors 
Karim Bakhsh and Rahim Bakhsh to the extent of 3/8 shares equally 
from Imam Din (the last full owner). Decree be drawn up accordingly.    
17. 
 
Before parting with the judgment, it has been observed 
with a great concern that the copies of the record annexed with the 
petitions do not reflect the exhibit marks, as if attached or brought 
on the record for the first time. The law is very much clear in this 
regard 
that 
fresh 
record 
and 
new 
documents 
cannot 
be 
attached/brought on the record except in accordance with the 
procedure prescribed under Rule 4 of Order XXXIII of the Supreme 
Court Rules, 1980. Since none of the parties disputed the 
authenticity of these documents, so we looked into and considered 
the same. The office however should be vigilant in future and should 
not accept such like record.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acting Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Announced in open Court on  
 
at Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
(Approved for Reporting)