' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- Admittedly, Sohna, the predecessor-in- interest of the parties, was the owner of the land measuring 1540-Kanals and l2 Marlas situated in village Khokhar Ashraf Tehsil Chunain District Kausar; he had two wives namely Mst. Nawab Bibi and Mst. Panan Bibi; out of Mst. Nawab Bibi, Dildar Ali, Muhammad Yaseen , Mst. Goman Bibi, Mst. Sughran Bibi and Mst. Bhagan Bibi (respondents Nos. 1 to 5 respectively) are his children, while from Mst. Panam Bibi, Asba and Mst.
Charagh Bibi (the petitioners) are his sons and daughter respectively. Dildar Ali and Muhammad Yaseen (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) on 9-2-1976 filed a suit for declaration against Sohna claiming that the suit land has been transferred in their favour by him (Sohna) by virtue of a gift and a consent decree dated 31-7-1978 was passed in their favour and against Sohna; this is the undisputed position of the case. I have been apprised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the above decree, mutation No,966 dated 8-2-1979 was also sanctioned.
2. The other limb of the list is that the said decree was no recognized by the Land Reforms Authority as being invalid having been passed after the target date i.e, 4-1-1977 and some order in this behalf was passed by the Federal Land Commission, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, has been upheld upto the Honourable Supreme Court as well. Anyhow, Sohna lived till 20-10-1980 and he has never challenged the aforesaid decree in any manner whatsoever; when the respondents wanted to enforce their right on the basis of the said decree after his death against the petitioners, they resisted, constraining the respondents to file the suit, which was allowed on 18-10-1995; the petitioners' appeal has failed on 14-10-2000. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the aforementioned decree is nullity in the eyes of law, therefore, no valid gift shall be deemed to have been made by Sohna in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. When questioned, whether Sohna in his lifetime had ever challenged the decree, the answer is in the negative.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that such decree shall be invalid for the purpose of land reforms only and obviously in that perspective the land shall be deemed to be that to Sohna, and if it was found in excess of the limits provided by the land reforms, that was liable to be resumed, but as far as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, Sohna could not challenge the consent decree on the pretext of violative of the land reforms, because he himself was a party to the decree, and it was not permissible for him to turnaround and assail that neither the gift was made nor the consent was given, thus if Sohna is estopped on that account, his legal heirs are also estopped, because they are deriving the title through him. In the circumstances of the case, the judgment reported as Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others (2002 SCM R 1330) shall be applicable, in which it has been held:-- "Plaintiffs claiming property through A as his legal heirs had filed the suit in 1979, about nine years after sanction of mutation, which had already been given effect to in record of rights. Plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the mutation independently, for A through whom they claimed inheritance had not challenged the same during his lifetime."
Therefore, in my view the decree may only be ineffective as far as the land reforms are concerned, but not for the validity of the gift.
5. As far as the argument, that such decree was conditional and Asba is entitled to certain land on the basis thereof, is concerned, suffice it to say that such plea has not been set out in the written statement, thus neither any issue has been framed nor any finding in this regard has been given by the Courts below, therefore, this plea is not available to the petitioners at this stage.
In the light of above, I do not find any merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed.