' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 16-11-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fateh Jang whereby an appeal filed by respondent No,1 against the judgment and decree dated 14-4-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Fateh Jang was accepted.
2 The facts in brief as emerge on perusal of record are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the defendant/ respondent No,3 is owner in possession of land measuring 10-Kanals 13-Marlas fully described in the head-note of the plaint and the petitioners and respondent No,2 are entitled to inherit the same after her demise according to the Shariat and law and that the Mutation No,875 dated 30-6-2005 purportedly executed by defendant/respondent No,3 in favour of defendant/respondent No,1 is result of collusion between him and the revenue staff, forged, fraudulent because the defendant/ respondent No,3 never appeared before the revenue officer and also is not in senses for the last more than 6 months and as such the disputed mutation is illegal, against the facts and ineffective qua their rights.
3. The defendants/respondents Nos.1 and contested the suit whereas defendant/respondent No,3 contended that she had only asked that the land be transferred in favour of her daughters and did not receive any consideration from defendant/respondent No,1 and any mutation, if attested in favour of any person except her daughters is forged.
4. After framing of issues and recording the evidence, the learned trial court decreed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and held that defendant/respondent No,3 had filed the written statement and appeared in the court to make the statement so she was not a person of unsound mind. It was urged that only she could have challenged the mutation if the same was result of fraud or without consideration. It was further held that during lifetime of the vendor, i.e, defendant/respondent No,3, the plaintiffs/petitioners had no locus standi to file the suit.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Additional District Judge has miserably failed to appreciate that the petitioners/plaintiffs and defendant/respondent No,2 are real daughters and heirs of defendant/respondent No,3 and would be entitled to inherit the property on her demise. In support of the contentions reliance is placed on 1996 SCM R 354.
6. It is an admitted fact that Mst. Bano respondent No,3 has not assailed the mutation and has never filed a suit although she is alive. The petitioners or defendant/respondent No,1 are her prospective heirs only and the property has yet not devolved upon them. They have no interest, right or title over the disputed property at present. During the lifetime of the vendor/transferee the prospective heir has. No locus standi to A challenge the alienation. Under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, only such person can file a suit for declaration who is entitled to any legal character or to any right or title in respect of the property against the person denying or interested to deny such title legal character or right. The prospective heir does not possess any title to the property B and as such cannot file a suit for declaration in respect thereto. The case law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners 1996 SCM R 354 is not applicable on the facts of the present petition because in the said case Jagga Khan, the owner/vendor had died on 8-12-1970, sale deed was executed on 17-2-1969 and the suit was filed on 26-7-1971 when the hereditary rights had devolved upon the plaintiffs/respondents of the said suit. In the instant suit, Mst. Bano, respondent No,3 is still alive. She had appeared in the court and got her statement recorded and also filed written statement without next friend although the statement was made in favour of the petitioners to the effect that she had not alienated the land and the mutation was wrongly attested and had no objection on its cancellation but the same did not indicate that she is a C person of sound mind and the contention of the petitioners that she was not in senses was wrong so the findings of the learned Additional District Judge in this regard are unexceptional. Only defendant/respondent No,3 can file a suit for declaration challenging the disputed mutation on the basis of fraud, non- payment of consideration etc. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that the petitioners/plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Neither the same is without jurisdiction nor any irregularity has been committed. The civil revision is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.