P L D 1956 Supreme Court 438 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C. J.

This is a certified civil appeal from an appellate judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to it are these: One Shahoo owned 179 kanals and 11 marlas of land, a house and a vacant site in village Noonanwali in the District of Gujrat. Before his death in 1915 the entire property was gifted by Shahoo to his daughter Mst. Rajan, who after her marriage with Pohla had continued to reside at her father's house, the husband having been treated as a Khana‑damad. Shahoo had another daughter Mst. Fateh Bibi, but she had predeceased Mst. Rajan. 7 he appellants before us are the decendants of Shahoo's brothers, with the exception of Mst. Zainab Bibi who is a widow of one of such descendants. The respondents are the daughters of Mst. Fateh Bibi. Mst. Rajan died issueless in 1943, and on her death the property was mutated on the strength of the judgment of a Court ' in the name of Pohla for his lifetime. On Pohla's death the Revenue authorities mutated the land in favour of the appellants and this gave rise to a suit by the respondents, who as the daughters of Fateh Bibi claimed a preferential right to succeed to the property. At the hearing of the suit it seems to have be‑en a common ground between the parties that the gift by Shahoo in favor of Mst. Rajan was a khana damadi gift, and the only issue on which they went to tried was whether on Pohla's death the property reverted to tie appellants or to the respondents. The Civil Judge disco, A the suit, holding that the doctrine of reversion of gifted property applies cleary to ancestral property, that the property in suit being self‑acquired Mst. Rajan got it as an absolute owner under the gift and that the respondents as sister's daughters were excluded by the appellants, who are the representatives of the brothers of Mst. Rajan's father. The appeal against this decision having failed before the District Judge the respondents brought a second appeal in the High Court where the decree dismissing the suit was reversed and the suit was decreed, the ground of the decision being that the gift in favour of Mst. Rajan was not an absolute gift and that, therefore, the property reverted to the respondents, the original donor's heirs. The sole point argued by Mr. Bhatti before us is that since the property was self‑acquired the doctrine of reversion is inapplicable because in the case of a gift of self‑acquired property the giving is absolute and is not subject to the incident of reversion if the donee left no issue or having left such issue, their line has become distinct. This proposition is correct and is in accordance with the general custom which governs gifts by sonless proprietors But in the present case what is of importance is that the transaction was not an ordinary gift but a khana‑damadi gift. In the case of such gifts it is well settled that they are intended for the benefit of the daughter's issue and that if tire daughter dies issueless or the line of her issue becomes extinct the property revert to the heirs of the original donor, irrespective of whether the property is ancestral or self acquired. This principle has been stated not only in Fateh Alam v. Ghulam Sarwar (A I R 1933 Lah. 137 (2)) an authority relied on in' some an other connection by Mr. Bhatti himself, but in several other cases of the Punjab Chief Court which have been digested at page 458 of the 13th edition of Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law by Parakash Aggarwala, where the rule is stated as follows :‑ "Prior to the Full Bench decision in Sita Ram v. Raja Ram (12 P R 1892), it was held in many that on the death, without son, of a Khana damad, who succeeds to his father in‑law's estate the estate passed to his heirs and not to those of the father‑in‑law. The ruling given in Sita Ram v. Raja Ram, however, laid down the general principle that the property would revert to the original owner's family in all cases where the daughter's direct descendants, male or female, had died out." The High Court was, therefore, right in determining the question of succession between the parties on the doctrine of reversion to the original donor Shahoo. And since the finding of the High Court that daughter's daughters for purposes of succession to self‑acquired property stand on the same footing as daughters has not been questioned before us in arguments, the heirs of Shahoo who would succeed to the property are the respondents and not the appellants. The appeal is, therefore, without any substance and is dismissed with costs. A.H. Appeal dismissed.