{{REVIEW LATER}} ' This R.S.A. Arises from ti of May, 1967, of the learned A whereby the appellant-plaintiff's fi
2. The land in question was appellant in, favour of the Shahi I a mutation. The appellant challe applicable to the donor did not particularly when the land in dis. Suit was resisted taking a plea Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Sh, of 1962), powers to contest alienat The Courts below accepted this plo only the suit was dismissed but al
3. The position by now seems Mr. Hassan Ahmad Kanwar, counsel 2-A of the, West Pakistan Mu: (Amendment). Ordinance XIII of 11 has abated. There can be no cav suit from which the present R.S The very gravamen of challengini ancestral qua the appellant, coul legal necessity by the alienor and entitled to ask for its reverter. Decree securing such a reversion and so was the first appeal, but for that matter the present proce appeal are undeniably based upon e judgment/decree, dated the 31st iditional District Judge, Sahiwal, rst appeal was dismissed. Gifted away by the father of the losque, Depalpur on 31-12-1965 by iged it asserting that the custom permit such a power of alienation pute was ancestral qua him. The that under section 7 of the West Lriat) Application Act, 1962 (Act V on under custom were taken away. a concurrently and as a result not p the appeal. To have been drastically changed. For the respondents invoked section lim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 83 to urge that the present appeal 1 with the proposition because the A.
Arises, is based upon custom. The gift was that the land being not have been alienated without that the appellant as his son was Unluckily he could not get the ary right. The suit was dismissed the fact remains that the suit or adings in the shape of the second custom. Clause (c) of section 2- A ibid provides that such a suit or proceedings shall forthwith abate. It is difficult to defend the point.
The legislature in its wisdom has abolished such suits/proceedings by ordering their abatement.
Even otherwise the donor Muhammad Siddique having inherited the property from his own father somewhere earlier than 1948, was to be assumed to have had inherited, it under personal law and thereby become its full owner to make its alienation as he liked. Notionally he will be deemed to be free from all fetters in making alienations of the property as if it was his absolute ownership obtained under personal law. The appellant son would have no cause of grievance under personal law to challenge the alienation. For this reason too the present appeal which was continuation of the suit would abate.
4. Ch.. Rehmat Ali, counsel for the appellant could not say anything except that custom continued to apply to the alienor and that he was still under the restrictions contemplated by custom applicable to him. The argument is out of step as the new Legislation seems to have caused total extinction of custom. Its survival or revival could not be construed by any interpretation. The provision of section 2-A ibid is quite pre-emptory and categorical. It makes ineffective not only the pending suits/proceedings but even the decrees obtained were rendered void. In a way, therefore, custom was made to die irretrievably so that it is no more open to rely upon it in any form.
5. The objection raised on behalf of the respondent prevails and the R.S.A. Is dismissed as having abated. Parties are left to bear their own costs.