1987 PLP 1193 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 10‑‑West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), S.3‑‑Limited estate under customary law‑‑Determination of‑‑Where a widow was allotted land against her verified claim, her interest in allotted land, held, could be deemed 'limited' only when at time of making such allotment to her, Settlement Authorities had attached any condition or limitation that she would be limited estate holder‑‑In absence of any such condition she would not be considered holding limited estate merely because she had been described as 'widow' in documents received from India. Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others P L D 1971 S C 791 and Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq P L D 1973 SC 347 ref. Ch. Muhammad Hassan for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th April, 1984. Appellants filed a suit on 2‑1‑1963, for declaration of invalidity about a gift of 102 Kanals 2 Marlas of land situated in village Zafarke, Tehsil Kasur which was amended later to be a suit for joint possession of the land to the extent of 3/8th share, on the plea that Mst. Noor Begum defendant No. 1 was a limited estate‑holder of the land and could not, as such, have gifted it to defendant No.

2. Suit was contested with the assertion that she was a full owner of the land but Special Attorney of the plaintiffs admitted before the trial Court that the land in suit was evacuee and had been allotted to the donor in Pakistan whereat trial Court held that the suit was not competent and dismissed it accordingly on 12‑2‑1966.

2. An appeal thereagainst filed by the plaintiffs was also similarly dismissed on 19‑4‑1966 by a learned Additional District Judge on the conclusion that allotments made to the displaced persons are grants to be controlled only by the terms specified by the grantor and consequently upheld the view of the trial Court. Plaintiffs have now come up to this Court in this second appeal.

3. Learned counsel has referred to Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others P L D 1971 SC 791 and Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq P L D 1973 SC 347 to contend that the Courts in the country have the power to grant relief with regard to erstwhile evacuee lands since allotted against verified claims. There is no cavil with this proposition but the real question which arises is as to whether the civil Courts in the country can alter the terms of the grant made by way of allotment to a female into declaring her to be possessed of the same rights as she may have allegedly held in the abandoned land in India. Since it is for the grantor alone to provide the terms of the grant and the civil Courts cannot either provide such terms or vary them, therefore, there is no doubt that where the land may have been allotted to a widow in Pakistan by so providing at the time of making the allotment that she would be a limited estate holder according to the rights which she may have abandoned in India then alone her interest in the land allotted here may be deemed to have been so limited which would not be capable of being automatically transformed into a full ownership so that she may herself be a fresh stock of descent and she will continue to enjoy the same limited estate in that case. The difficulty for the plaintiffs in this case is that there does not appear any such condition or limitation attached to the allotment made to Mst. Noor Begum and the mere fact that she is described as a widow of a certain person in the special Jamabandi received from India or in the entitlement verified on that basis, would not lead to a conclusion of her having been either possessed of or conferred only a limited estate in the allotted land because such would be the normal description of any lady in this part of the subcontinent whose husband dies in her life time and even if she may subsequently purchase some property out of her own resources even then she would come to be so described.

4. In the above view of the case, there is no useful purpose likely to be served in this more than 20 years old suit being required to be tried further.

5. There is no force in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑36/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.