' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 1-6-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot whereby the learned Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 25-10-1997 of the learned Civil Judge.
2. One Blocky son of Allah Bukhsh was the owner of land measuring 64 Kanals 1 Marla, more particularly detailed in the plaint. Blocky transferred his total holding/land in favour of his wife Bhooli, his daughters Omri Bibi, Hussain Bibi and Resham Bibi and his step son Muhammad Hussain, through a gift. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit for declaration challenging the gift on behalf of Blocky, the said suit was decreed partially, the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of learned trial court was finally decided declaring that the gift to the extent of 3/20 shares is in accordance with law and to the extent of remaining 17/20 shares is set aside. The effect of decree of the learned appellate court was incorporated in the revenue record. However, subsequently these entries were omitted from the revenue record.
' The respondent No,1 being the legal heir of Hussain Bibi claim that and is entitled to inherit her property, respondent No,1 is co-owner in the disputed property to the extent of his own share. The petitioners controverted the assertions of plaint and pleaded that respondent No,1 is not shown co- owner in the revenue record, hence the suit is not maintainable. The respondents become the owners through adverse possession, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, etc. The learned trial court, out of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- "ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi in view of preliminary objection No, 1? OPD
(2) Whether the gift has abated in view of preliminary objection No,6 of the written statement filed by the defendant No, I ? OPD
(3) Whether the defendants are owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder if so its effect? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is incorrect valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(6) Whether the description of the suit land is incorrect? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff has obtained the decree with regard to the estate of the deceased Balaqi in favour of the Mst. Bholi etc in a suit for declaration as incorrect? OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decreed as it is prayed for? OPP
(9) Relief'.
' The suit in the first instance after recording the evidence was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8-12-1990, however the judgment and decree dated 8-12-1990 was set aside and the learned appellate court after framing an additional issue No,9 remanded the case to the learned trial court. The learned trial court after recording the evidence again dismissed the suit on 25-10- 1997. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Blocky died in the year 1956, he gifted his property to his wife Bholi, three daughters namely Hussain Bibi, Omri Bibi and Resham Bibi and one step son (Pichhlak) Muhammad Hussain by way of gift in the year 1928. The relatives/aspirant of Blocky's property challenged the gift through a civil suit under the customary law, the said suit was decreed and it was held that the land, subject matter of gift to the extent of 19/20 shares is set aside and remaining 1/20 shares is legal. Against the said decree an appeal was filed and the parties entered into a compromise, in consequences of the compromise the gift was accepted to the extent of 3/20 shares and remaining 17/20 shares were left for the reversionary of Blocky. The mutations of gift were attested in the revenue record. Another suit was filed for setting aside 17/20 shares which too was decreed in the year 1956 and appeal there against was dismissed. The entry in the name of Hussain Bibi in the revenue record was omitted in the year 1947-48 without any reason.
Respondent No 1 is a co-owner in the disputed property. The learned trial court while dismissing the suit has failed to appreciate the facts and law.
2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that they are not claiming any share in the property of Blocky to the extent of 17/20 shares, they are owners of the property to the extent of 3/20 shares, they refuted the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that decree passed under a customary law and gift was abated after promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. Learned counsel submits that the decree in favour of respondents to the extent of 3/20 shares was finalized even in the life time of Blocky, Blocky never challenged the said decree, hence it cannot be said that the gift effected prior to the promulgation of the Act of 1962 stand abated.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It is an admitted fact that the land, subject matter of the suit was owned by one Blocky who alienated his entire property by way of gift in favour of his wife Mst. Bholi, three daughters namely Omri Bibi, Mst. Hussain Bibi and Resham Bibi, alongwith them he also gifted his property to Muhammad Hussain who was a Pichhlak, the son of his wife Bholi from her first husband, the gift was effected on 15-6-1928 and 19-2-1929. One Muhammad Din, the adopted son of Blocky, instituted a suit challenging the gift in favour of Blocky's wife, daughter and Muhammad Hussain, the suit was decreed to the effect that gift is legal to the extent of 1/20 shares and rest of the gift to extent of 19/20 shares is not in accordance with law and will remain the property of Blocky. The affected persons/beneficiary of the gift filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-3- 1931, however in appeal the parties compromised the dispute and it was settled that the gift to the extent of 3/20 shares will remain intact and remaining 17/20 shares will be available to the legal heirs of Blocky and the appeal on 27-3-1958 was finally decided. The argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that a decree passed under the customary law of the gift in favour of three daughters, one wife and one. Pichhlak son Muhammad Hussain stand abated after the promulgation of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. Learned counsel for respondent states that they have no objection that land to the extent of 17/20 shares of the gift be retained for the legal heirs of Blocky as the suit land was returned to Blocky in terms of a decree dated 27-3-1958.
5. The only question is whether under Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 read with Punjab Amendment Ordinance, 1983 a decree passed prior to the promulgation of the Act of 1962 and amendment made in the year 1983 remain intact or stand abated ? Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 is reproduced as under:-
(b) any decree, judgment or order of any Court affirming the right of any reversionary under custom or usage, to call in question such an alienation or directing delivery or possession of agricultural land on such basis shall be void, inexecutable and of no legal effect to the extent it is contrary to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act;
(c) all suits or other proceedings of such a nature pending in any Court and all execution proceedings seeking possession of land under such decree shall abate forthwith; ' Provided that nothing herein contained shall be applicable to transactions past and closed where possession of such land has already been delivered under such decrees".
6. It is an admitted fact that the possession of the gifted property was transferred to the donees in the year 1928. The gift announced by Blocky in the year 1928 was set aside to the extent of 17/20 shares in a suit filed by the adopted son of Blocky but admittedly under the said decree all the beneficiaries were settled and taken possession of their respective shares. According to the final decree 17/20 shares in the property of deceased Blocky remain in the name of Blocky, hence Blocky's legal heirs are entitled to inherit to the extent of 17/20 share but the petitioners claim that the gift was also under custom and is hit by Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 as amended vide Ordinance of 1983, is not sustainable in the eye of law as it will be deemed to be a past and closed transaction. The transaction was finalized in the year 1931, and last appeal was decided in the year 1958. After that there was no litigation and parties have taken possession of their respective shares. Learned appellate court thus has rightly set aside the judgment of learned trial court as the transaction of gift on the part of Blocky is saved under the provision of Section 2-A-(c) of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law.(Shariat)
Application Act, 1962.
7. In view of the above, this Civil Revision fails and is dismissed.