1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALT, J.-This certificated appeal arises from Civil Suit No. 332 of 1955 instituted by the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Montgomery, for a declaration that gift of the land described in the plaint measuring 259 kanals and 10 marlas situated in Chak No. 27/1-A. L, Tehsil Okara, by Mst. Salehon, respondent No. 4, in favour of the appellant was qua their reversionary rights null and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal the High Court reversed the judgment and decree in favour of the appellant and decreed the suit.
2. The trial Court upheld the gift in the view that Mst. Salehon was an original tenant of the suit land and became an absolute owner by virtue of acquisition of proprietary rights on payment of Malikana to the provincial in this view precluded from assailing the gift made by her in favour of the appellant. The learned Judges m the High Court came to a contrary conclusion and found that Mst.
3. Salehon was given the grant on account of her deceased husband Ahmad and as such she was not an original tenant. Accordingly, under sec--tion 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, which had earlier come into operation, Mst. Salehon did not become an absolute owner of the land. The gift made by Mst. Salehon in favour of the appellant was, therefore, null and void against the rights of the plaintiffs to succeed to the land as reversioneries of Ahmad on the termination of the life estate of the donor. Certificate for leave to appeal to this Court was granted as the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the trial Court as well as on appeal to the High Court was more than Rs. 20,000 and it was contended that the judgment and decree passed by the High Court was without jurisdiction since under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 11 of 1962 the R. F. A., stood transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Sahiwal, before the judgment was announced on 13-1-1962.
4. The answer to the first question lies in the interpretation of clause (b) of section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, which is to the effect.
5. "(b) If the tenancy was first allotted on account of some male person, either to her, or to another female to whom she succeeded either directly or in a continuous line of female succession, as if the proprietary rights had been acquired by such male person, and she had succeeded to such rights and his heirs, and in cases falling under clause (a) or clause (b) in the event of such female proprietor dying while in possession of the proprietary rights in question, the said rights shall devolve upon the persons who would be entitled to succeed, if such rights had been acquired by the last male tenant, or the male person on whose account the tenancy was first allotted as the case may be."
6. The words which consideration are "on account of some male person", but before we proceed to examine their scope, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts.
7. Ahmad, husband of Mst. Salehon, was a resident of Chak No. 27/1-A. L, Tehsil Okara; district Montgomery. The land owned by him the Chak was submerged in River Sutlej whereupon he, or the 17th September 1924, applied to the Collector for grant of land under Darya Burdi Scheme. The application was pending consideration when Ahmad died on 9th March, 1928. After that the Collector on the 10th December 1928, gave sanction for grant of the land to Ahmad. Copy of fard taqsim, Exh. D. 4, appears at page 58 of the Paper Book. The name of the settler is mentioned in column No. 1, as "Ahmad son of Lakhan, Caste Janduana". The description of the land granted to Ahmad appears in columns 3 to 5 which is the subject --matter of the present dispute. In the last column the date of delivery of possession is mentioned as "8th December 1928". As Ahmad had earlier died mutation Exh. D. 5 (pp. 69-73) of the land in the name of his widow Mst. Salehon was entered on the same date and attested by the Naib Tahsildar Settlement on 31st May 1929, by the following order: "Regarding mutation No. 1, relating to Chak No. 27/1-A. L., Tehsil Okara, District Montgomery.
8. This mutation, in the presence of Mst. Salehon widow of Ahmad, grantee identified by Bahadur Lambardar, of Jhandu Fateh, came up in public gathering. Vide above-mentioned order, dated the 10th December 1928, it is ordered that the mutation of the grant as Darya-Burdi, of the land entered at Khata No. 2, Square No. 8, Killa Nos. 1 to 12 to 28 and Square No. 15, Killas Nos. 1 to 10, 11/1 and 26/1 total area of the land transferred being 259 kanals and 10 marlas made by the Government in favour of Ahmad is sanctioned. In the above--mentioned order, the area of land is 264 kanals, but due to fresh measurements, the actual area is 259 kanals and 10 marlas. The supplementary pedigree-table is attached.
9. Dated the 31st May 1929.
10. (Sd.) Muhammad Ashiq, Naib Tahsildar, Settlement, Renala Khurd at Chak No. 26/ 1-A. L. (In Urdu)."
11. Mst. Salehon acquired proprietary rights in the land on the 11 August 1945, on payment of malikana to the Government By then section 30-A had been added to the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, which provides as under : "30-A. Rights of alienation in respect of and rule of succession to certain proprietary rights acquired by a female.-Notwith--standing any custom and the provisions of any law to the contrary, when after the commencement of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Act, 1944, proprietary rights in any land are acquired by a female tenant, her rights of alienation of any such land shall be the sameth
(a) if she succeeded to the tenancy directly or indirectly from a male tenant, as if the proprietary rights had been acquired by the last male tenant, and she had succeeded to such rights as his heir; and
(b) if the tenancy was first allotted on account of some male person, either to her, or to another female to whom she succeeded either directly or in a continuous line of female succession, as if the proprietary rights had been acquired by such male person, and she had succeeded to such rights as his heir, and in cases falling under clause (a) or clause (b) in the event of such female proprietor dying while in- possession of the proprietary rights in question, the said rights shall devolve upon the persons who would be entitled to succeed, if such rights had been acquired by the last male tenant or the male person on whose account the tenancy was first allotted as the case may be."
12. As Mst. Salehon had acquired the tenancy on account of he deceased husband, the acquisition of proprietary rights by her in 1945 did not make her an absolute owner of the land. In construing clause (b) the trial Judge however relied in this respect on clause (a) of section 21 which contains the rule of succession to tenants acquiring by succession and any female tenant viz "(a) in the case of a female, to whom the tenancy has been first allotted, on the successor nominated by the Collector from the issue of such female tenant, or from the male agnates of the person on account of whose-services the tenancy was allotted to her;"
13. Reference was also made to the statement of object and reasons for the addition of section 30-A in the Act in 1944. The opening clause recites : "female tenants who have succeeded to tenancies under section 21 of the Colony Act or to whom grants have been made in recognition of the services of a male frequently become entitled to acquire proprietary rights and when they do so, the Courts treat the land as their self-acquired property over which they have complete power of disposal". From the words: "in recognition of the services of a male" the trial Judge concluded that the wards "on account of a male" occurring in clause (b) of section 30-A necessarily implied grants in recognition of services of a male: In that view as Ahmad had rendered no services to the Government and grant to Mst. Salehon was made under Darya Burdi Scheme, it was held that clause (b) of section 30-A bad no application to the land in the hands of Mst. Salehon.
14. The learned Judges in the High Court repelled the reasoning of the trial Judge with the observations "However, looking at the section and the statement of object and reasons we feel that the dominant intention of bringing in the amendment in the Colonization of Government Lands Act was to the property which they acquired on account of some male person. We see no reason to give a restricted meaning to the words "on account of some male person". It should include the land acquired as a result of the services rendered by a male person and also if it could not have been acquired by the widow independently of some mule person. Admittedly, Ahmad had lost some property, due to diluvium and it was in lieu of that property that the land in dispute was granted to Mst. Salehon. It is, therefore, clear that she acquired this property not in her own right, but she got it because of her being a widow of Ahmad who had lost his land due to river action. By giving a restricted meaning to the words "on account of some male person", we would be defeating the very object of the amendment which, on the face of it, was to restrict the powers of alienations of the widows of the property that they get not because of their own independent right, but on account of some male person. We are consequently unable to agree with the interpretation given by the learned Senior Civil Judge to thee words.
15. The second contention raised by the learned counsel has also little force. The suit filed by the respondents was valued at Rs. 16,000 for purposes of jurisdiction. Under the Punjab Courts Act which was in force when the suit was decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, the appeal was properly filed by the respondents in the High Court on the 31st May 1956. After the appeal become ripe, it was heard by a Division Bench on the 3rd January 1962, and orders were reserved. Thereafter the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance Ii of 1962 was promulgated with effect from 8th January 1962. Under section 1:8 an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge lies
(a) to the High Court if the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made exceeds twenty-five thousand rupees; and
(b) to the District Judge in any other case."
16. Under section 28 (3) "On the commencement of this Ordinance, if any suit or appeal is pending in the High Court or and other Civil Court, which under this Ordinance is to be tried or heard by some other Court, such suit or appeal shall stand transferred to the Court competent under this Ordinance to try or hear the same". "Hearing" means hearing of argu--ments. As arguments had already been heard on the 3rd January 1962, the appeal was not "pending hearing" within the purview of section 28 (3) so as to cost the jurisdiction of the High Court to deliver the judgment on a subsequent date. The plea that the appeal stood transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Sahiwal, has therefore, no force.
17. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel having failed the appeal is dismissed, but as the respondents have not put in appearance, there will be no order as to costs.