ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 22-6-1993 dismissing their revision petition (C.R. 443 of 1986) filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Multan, dated 18-6-1986 whereby the suit of respondents Nos. l to 6 was decreed.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition briefly are that one Bakhshan, common predecessor of the parties, had to sons, namely Sultan and Dilawar Dilawar died during the lifetime of his father leaving behind to sons Khairan and Bakhshaya.. Sultan had no male issue and had only to daughters Mst. Zainab and Mst. Zeenat. The latter died during the lifetime of her father Sultan. Mst. Zainab thus succeeded to the estate of her father as a limited owner under custom.
Khairan had to sons, namely, Sohney Khan, the predecessor of respondents Nos. l to 6 and Muhammad Bakhsh, the predecessor of the present petitioners. Bakhshaya, the second son of Dilawar, had only one son Allah Diwaya who in due course was succeeded by his to sons Piran Ditta and Allah Ditta and a daughter Mst. Sukho, respondents Nos.7 to 9 herein. Allah Ditta is stated to have died during the pendency of the revision petition in the High Court and his legal heirs are arrayed as respondents in the present petition.
3. Mst. Zainab daughter of Sultan gifted the land held by her as a limited owner in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh son of Khairan on 14-6-1917. The gift was challenged by her uncle Bakhshaya son of Dilawar, the grand-father of respondents Nos.7 to 9, on the ground that Mst. Zainab being a limited owner having only a life interest in the land could not gift it away to Muhammad Bakhsh and sought it to be declared that the impugned gift shall not affect his reversionary rights on the death of Mst. Zainab. The suit was decreed on 28-3-1918 with the result that the land reverted to Mst. Zainab.
4. Mst. Zainab, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, died on 15-7-1949 though the cage of the respondents Nos. l to 6 as set out in their plaint was that she had died in December, 1967 and the trial Court also when dealing with the issue of limitation seems to have proceeded on this basis. Be that as it may, on the death of Mst. Zainab, the suit land was mutated in favour of Muhammad Bukhsh, the predecessor of the petitioners and respondents Nos.7 to 9 as heirs of Bakhshaya whose declaratory suit had been decreed on 28-3-1918. Sohney Khan who was not given any share in the suit land brought a suit against his brother Muhammad Bukhsh and respondents Nos.7 to 9 for declaration to the effect that being one of the reversioners of Sultan son of Bakshan, he, to, was entitled to have his share in the suit land. His contention was that the decree dated 28-3-1918 passed in the suit of his uncle Bakhshaya to challenge the gift made by Mst.
Zainab, the limited estate holder enured for the benefit of all the reversioners of Sultan son of Bakshan. The suit was contested by the defendants which gave rise to the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff owns 5/20th share of the suit land? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of his share? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is the-barred? OPD
(4) Whether this suit is not maintain in the present form? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit? OPD
(7) Relief.
5. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence adduced by the parties decided Issues Nos.2 and 4 in favour of plaintiff, Issues Nos.5 and 6 against the defendants and Issue No.3 in their favour.
On Issue No. 1, the finding of the trial Court was that Soney Khan plaintiff or his father having failed to challenge the gift made by Mst. Zainab, the plaintiff could not claim any benefit from the decree obtained by Bakhshaya and as such he had no share in the suit property. Issue No. l was accordingly answered in the negative and on the basis of findings on this issue and issue No.3, the suit of Sohney Khan was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 20-4-1981. Sohney Khan took the matter in appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge who vide his judgment dated 18-6-1986 decreed his suit reversing the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos. l and 3.
6. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court but with no better result as their revision petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide. The impugned judgment holding that the decree passed in the suit brought by Bakhshaya to challenge the gift made by Mst. Zainab in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh enured not only for the benefit of Bakhshaya but also for the benefit of all the reversioners of Sultan including Soheny Khan and Muhammad Bakhsh, sons of Khairan, the brother of Bakhshaya and that Sohney Khan who had 5/20th shares in suit land was wrongfully excluded from the inheritance on the death of Mst.
Zainab.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has contended that the declaratory decree passed in the suit of Bakshaya could not entire for the, benefit of the respondents. There is no merit in this contention as the law at the relevant the was that a decree obtained by any person declaring that an alienation of ancestral property was not binding on him according to custom, shall entire for the benefit of all persons entitled to impeach the alienation. It is an admitted position that Mst. Zainab held the suit land as a limited owner under custom when she made the gift in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh and Bakshaya challenged the gift and obtained a declaratory decree that it shall not affect his reversionary rights on the death of Mst. Zainab. It is not denied that Sohney Khan plaintiff, the predecessor of respondents Nos. l to 6 was a reversioner of the last male owner of the suit land like Bakhsliaya. That being so, the declaratory decree obtained by Bakhshaya also enured for the benefit of Sohney Khan with the result that on the death of Mst.
Zainab, Sohney Khan was entitled to his lawful share in the suit land. The view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court is unexceptionable.
8. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the cause of action, if any, accrued to Sohney Khan when after the death of Mst. Zainab, the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in the year 1949 but he brought the suit on 29-5-1974 which was hopelessly the-barred. This objection incorporated in Issue No.3 has been duly attended to by the learned Additional District Judge and he has held and rightly so that Sohney Khan and the present petitioners were co-sharers in the suit property and, therefore, limitation did not run against Sohney Khan particularly when in the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74, parties were shown in the disputed property as co-sharers. It may pertinently be observed that even the trial Court which had decided the issue of limitation against the plaintiff (holding that the suit was brought by him six years after the alleged death of Mst.
Zainab in December 1967) had found on the basis of Jamabandi Exhs.P-2 and P-3 that "the plaintiff and the defendants are owners of joint Khata"
9. In view of what has been said above, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court. This petition is, accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused.