1. SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court, dated 29-1-1991 whereby accepting the appeal filed by respondent No,1, the suit filed by the appellants, herein, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants brought a suit seeking declaration that Mst. Mehr Jan was a limited owner of the suit land and as such she was not competent to transfer the same through the gift-deed dated 29-7-1978 in favour of Jalal Din, respondent-defendant. It was alleged that Akka Khan, the husband of Mst. Mehr Jan, was the last full owner and thus, the plaintiffs-appellants being his reversioners were to inherit from the estate left by him on the termination of the limited interests. The plaintiffs-appellants sought declaration to the effect that the gift-deed executed by Mst. Mehr Jan was inoperative and ineffective against their interests. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs-appellants could not prove their relationship with Akka Khan and as such they had no locus standi to challenge the gift-deed. On appeal to the District Judge, the findings of the trial Court were reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was decreed. The High Court, on second appeal, came to the conclusion that although the plaintiffs-appellants are related to Akka Khan but they being remote reversioners have no chance to inherit from the suit land in presence of reversioners who are related to Akka Khan nearer in degree. 'We have heard the arguments and perused the file. It may be stated at the very outset that in view of section 3 of the Act known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
3. Application Act of 1948, Mst. Mehr Jan was a full owner to the extent of 1/8th share of the estate left by her husband because she had also a daughter born out of the wedlock between her and her husband, Akka Khan. Thus, the gift-deed to the extent of 1/8th share of the estate left by Akka Khan is valid and is not open to challenge by the reversioners irrespective of the fact that they are related to Akka Khan in nearer or remoter degree. It may be observed that the question as to whether Mst. Mehr Jan was a limited owner is not the subject of controversy between the parties because they are in agreement on the point that she was a limited owner. So far as the remaining 7/8th share of the estate of Akka Khan is concerned, that is to be inherited by the reversioners at the time when the limited interests of Mst. Mehr Jan come to an end, i.e,, after her death or remarriage as envisaged under section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1948.
4. The question which falls for determination is as to whether in presence of reversioners who were entitled to inherit at the time of filing of the suit, the remote reversioners were competent to challenge the alienation made by Mst. Mehr Jan. It may be stated that in view of section 3 of the aforesaid Act, on the termination of the limited interests, it would be deemed that Akka Khan died on the date on which the limited interests of Mst. Mehr Jan came to an end. Thus, it cannot be said that at the time when the limited interests would terminate, which of the reversioners would be alive; the possibility that the reversioners who were entitled to inherit at the time of the institution of the suit may cease to exist without leaving any heirs at the time of termination of limited interests cannot be excluded and in any such eventuality, a remote reversioner may have a chance to inherit. Thus, it cannot be said that in presence of nearer reversioners a remote reversioner is debarred from seeking a declaration. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court that the plaintiffs-appellants being remoter reversioners having no chance to inherit at the time of filing of the suit were not entitled to declaration is not tenable. We are fortified in our view in cases reported as Mst. Sharfo v. Ghulam Abbas PLD 1970 Lah. 730 and Sm. Bidhu Mukhi Dassya v. Sm. Sarla Sundri Dassya PLD 1956 Dacca 153, wherein it has been held that a remote reversioner is competent to challenge a transfer made by a limited owner.
5. In the light of what has been stated above, we accept the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore that of District Judge with the modification that the gift-deed to the extent of 1/8th share of Mst. Mehr Jan shall remain intact but the same would be inoperative against the plaintiffs-appellants so far as the same pertains to remaining 7/8th share of the suit land.