Inheritance Mutation ---Suit for declaration with permanent injunction was filed by respondent being daughter of the deceased ("H") claiming that .............

 2023 CLC 673

Inheritance Mutation ---Suit for declaration with permanent injunction was filed by respondent being daughter of the deceased ("H") claiming that Mutation s in favour of the brother ("J") of her deceased father was illegal/based on fraud; that "H" was allotted the land in 1934 but died before the grant of proprietary rights; that as the sole daughter of "H", she was entitled to grant of proprietary rights; that "J" got the inheritance Mutation sanctioned in his favour in 1952 when respondent was aged 2 years; that petitioner/defendant was widow of both "H" and "J" as she contracted second marriage with "J" after death of "H"---Suit was concurrently decreed---Petitioner contended that after death of "H", "J" had paid all the dues regarding he land; that conveyance deed was also issued by the Government in favour of "J"; that respondent's suit was barred by the time as the same was filed after more than 6 years; that respondent admitted that she had the knowledge of all the transactions of property for the last 35 years; that under S.36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred; that at the time of opening of the inheritance of "H" in 1948, amended S.19A of the Colony Act was not available; that "J" was allotted the land under the order of the Collector which order was not challenged and the same was not even brought on record; that Trial Court had not given any finding on the said point despite the fact that specific issue was framed in that regard; that against grant of proprietary rights and Pata-Malkiyat, specific remedy was available under Section 30 of the Act, 1912---Validity---Land was originally owned by the Provincial Government and by notification, the same was allotted to "H" who cultivated the same till his death---Admittedly, after the death of "H", "J" had been cultivating the land---"H" had not been paying the dues/rent, the allotment might have been cancelled by the Government/District Collector which was not the fact---Under Act, 1912, the tenancy shall devolve upon the heirs in accordance with the Islamic Law---Section 19A of the Act, 1912, was enacted in 1951, that is why, the same was not applicable at the time of death of "H"---"J" died after a long time of the death of "H"---After the death of "H", the property was to devolve upon his widow and daughter under S.20 of the Act, 1912, until she would die/remarry/lose---After the death of "H", the land was to be devolved under S.20 of the Act, 1912, to the widow (respondent) and the daughter (petitioner) of the deceased/allottee till their entitlement---Neither the District Collector made any inquiry before issuance of Pata Malkiyator grant of proprietary rights as required under the Act, 1912, nor the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners disclosed the fact that under which capacity he was claiming the proprietary rights---At the time of sanctioning of Mutation , "J" being predecessor-in-interest of the parties concealed regarding the legal heirs available at the time of death of "H"---Civil Court was competent to hear the matter where the title was involved and the inheritance was specifically agitated because the revenue authorities were not having jurisdiction to decide the matter of inheritance---Collector had no discretion to grant proprietary rights to any other person in presence of the legal heir---Collector's order confirming the proprietary rights of "J" and sanctioning Mutation was rightly declared null and void by the courts below.

Mutation ---Limitation---Applicability of---Scope---In case of inheritance Mutation , the limitation would not run, especially when there was an evidence that the same was sanctioned by concealment or the other side had been compensating the legal heir with the produce or in shape of money