1. ' This is a second appeal by the plaintiff which has arisen out of a declaratory suit with a consequential relief for possession of the land in suit. A suit for the above-mentioned reliefs was instituted in the Court of Sub-Judge, Kotli which, on establishment of the Court of Sub-Judge, Nakial, was transferred to the latter for trial and disposal according to law.
2. ' The land in suit was sold by Farman Ali, father of the plaintiff, Muhammad Sharif and one Habibullah, the real brother of aforesaid Saif Ali to the defendants-respondents, for a consideration of RS'. 6,64) through a registered sale-deed 'D. A'. Dated 31-7-1979, a certified copy of which was also placed on record by the plaintiff. This sale-deed stands admitted to be correct by the plaintiff, himself, vide his statement in this behalf. The defendants as vendees of the land in suit, are in possession of the same, mutation of which was also attested in their favour by a competent Reveune Officer, vide a certified copy 'D. A.' of the mutation of the land in suit.
3. ' It was claimed by the plaintiff that for the property in suit being ancestral one, it could not legally be transferred by sale by his father and uncle in favour of the defendants under some custom without a legal necessity and as such, it was prayed that a declaration with consequential relief for possession be made to the effect that the sale of the land in suit in favour of the defendants was void and illegal as against the rights of the plaintiff, that is, as the impugned sale was effected without a legal necessity, it was illegal and so possession of the land in suit be restored to him. All the allegations made by the plaintiff were controverted by the defendants contending that there was no custom of the sort in vogue as pleaded by the plaintiff under which the vendors could not be competent to transfer the land in suit which was owned by them.
4. ' The trial Court framed the following issues : "(1) Whether the land in suit was devolved upon Farman Ali and Habibullah Khan under custom as ancestral property ? 0. P. P.
(2) If issue No, 1 is answered in affirmative, whether vendors were not competent to sell the land in suit under custom ? O. P. P.
(3) In case issues Nos. 1 and 2 stand proved, whether sale-deed in dispute is void, illegal and ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiff, if so, how and why ? 0. P. P.
(4) If issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the land in suit on payment of consideration money for which it was transferred through sale-deed in question, if so, how ? 0. P. P.
5. ' The learned counsel for the parties were heard and a perusal of the record was also made by me.
6. Issue No, 1 was decided by the Sub-Judge in favour of the plaintiff but the learned District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court on this issue without touching its substance and without giving any reasons therein. No doubt, the property in dispute was ancestral property of the vendor.
7. However, it is not clear from the record whether it was inherited under the provisions of Muslim Law or by any custom prevalent during the Dogra Regime. It would make no difference with regard to the mode of the inheritance either way. Even under the provisions of custom, the male descendants of a person used to inherit the landed property as absolute owners during the Dogra Regime. Their status was never limited A under any customary law. There were however, the females alone who, under the provisions of customary law, used to have limited status. Daughters and widows were the persons who had limited ownership and as such were unable without a legal necessity, to make transfer of the landed property inherited by them as such. Their status being limited, used to come to an end on their marriages or remarriages, or death, as the case may be, and immovable property so left by them had to revert to the reversioners of the male owners from whom they (widows and daughters were to receive the property limitedly. Therefore, Issue No, 1 stands disposed of accordingly.
8. ' Issue No, 2 was decided by both the Courts below against the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff- appellant was unable to point out any custom governing the vendors thereby prohibiting them in respect of disposal of the landed property owned by them. He even did not know any of the customs under which he could have a cause of action against the defendants. The vendors were the full owners of the property and so, had a right to sell the same without any restriction placed on them by law as was wrongly alleged by the plaintiff-appellant without any foundation. As a matter of fact and law both, the plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the sale-deed of the land in suit under appeal. B After the enforcement of Shariat Law in the Statute, which was enforced in March, 1948, in case of land owners, there is no place for any custom to prevail upon Muslim Law. The trial Court was very careless in knowing law and its application thereof. For the reasons above, the sale- deed could not be challenged by the plaintiff-appellant so as to obtain a declaration from the Court for the same being illegal and void. If the plaintiff was prepared to pay consideration of the suit land to the vendors, he ought- to have a recourse ,tot-a. Proper Court by exercising the right of prior purchase at the proper and relevant time which he failed to avail of and no other right, whatsoever, is found to have vested in him so as to enable him to challenge the sale-deed of the land in suit.
9. ' That being so, this appeal is dismissed with costs. The counsel's fee of this Court will be Rs, 200. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.