The only question of law which arises for determination in this second appeal is as to whether the decree passed by the learned trial Court declaring that the sale of land in dispute made by respondent No. 2 Abdul Aziz in favour of appellant was ineffective on the reversionary rights of respondent No. 1 plaintiff after the death of the vendor which has been maintained in appeal by the learned lower appellate Court through judgment and decree dated 12-4-1972 through which the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed is sustainable.
2. It is evident that decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 was merely declaratory and on the basis of this declaration he was to file suit for recovery of possession of land after the death of the vendor i.e. Abdul Aziz. Ordinance XIII of 1983 of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 provides that any alienation of land inherited by a male heir under custom would be deemed to have been made as if he was full owner and no limitation under customary law were applicable as regards right to sell and any decree pasted declaring that such sale would be ineffective on the reversionary rights would be ineffective and any suit and proceedings if pending for declaration against the validity of such sale under customary law A would abate forthwith. Only one exception has been made which is to the effect that in those cases where the decree for possession had been passed in favour of the heirs of the vendor which had been executed and possession delivered the same would not be affected by the provisions of this Ordinance.
3. As observed above, in the present case it was merely a declaratory decree which was passed, therefore, there is no question of its execution and delivery of possession thereunder to the plaintiff.
This decree and the suit filed by respondent No. 1 falls within the mischief of the provisions of this Ordinance therefore has become ineffective and the sale made by respondent No. 2 in favour of the appellant has to be deemed to have been made by a person having full ownership rights without any limitation on his rights or power to alienate the land as such.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the suit dismissed as having abated. The parties are left to bear their own costs.