ATA MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC.S
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioner, Ata Muhammad, challenging a 1954 gift of landed property made by his grandmother, Mst. Rehmate, who held the property as a limited owner. The petitioner sought a declaration that the gift was void and ineffective against the rights of reversioners. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the petitioner lacked a cause of action as he was not a collateral of the original owners. This dismissal was upheld by both the District Judge in appeal and the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner had the locus standi to maintain the suit. The Court held that as the son of a daughter, the petitioner was not a reversioner, and his mother, being the daughter of the original owner, was still alive, thereby precluding his standing. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's claim of being a collateral, noting the existence of a prior relative. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Does the son of a daughter have locus standi to challenge a gift made by a limited owner while his mother is still alive?
- Can a person maintain a suit as a collateral when a closer relative is still alive?
ORDER
1. QAISAR KHAN, J.-One Khaira was the owner of some landed property. On his death the property was inherited by his son Lalu. On the death of Lalu the property was mutated in the name of his mother Mst. Rehmate apparently under custom for her life as a limited owner. In 1954 Mst. Rehmate gifted the property in favour of her 3 daughters namely Mst. Zeenat Bibi, Mst. Sardar Bibi and Mst.
2. Muhammad Bibi. In 1973 Ata Muhammad son of one of the daughters instituted a suit against the other daughters, one Ghulam Nabi and the Province of Punjab through the Rehabilitation Secretary for a declaration to the effect that the gift by Mst. Rehmate in favour of his daughters was against custom and therefore void and ineffec--tive against the right of the reversioners. The defendants contested the suit and the learned Civil Judge by his order dated the 24th of June 1975, held that the plaintiff had no cause of action as he was not a collateral of Lalu or Khaira. He therefore dismissed the suit. Ata Muhammad went up in appeal to the Court of the District Judge and the learned District Judge by his order dated the 12th of March 1977, upheld the finding of the Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal in limine.
3. Ata Muhammad went up in second appeal to the High Court but a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 12th of October 1977 dismissed his second appeal also in limine.
4. Ata Muhammad has thus filed this petition for special leave to appeal. After bearing Moulvi Sirajul Haq, learned Advocate for the petitioner and going through the various orders it is abundantly clear that there is no merit in this petition. Ata Muhammad being the son of a daughter was not at all a reversioner and could not therefore maintain the suit in dispute. His mother who was daughter of Khaira and sister of Lalu was still alive and in her presence he had no locus standi for instituting the suit. The assertion of his counsel that he was also a collateral of Khaira has no substance in it for firstly he bad not based his claim on that ground and secondly as remarked by the learned Single Judge even in that case the brother of his grandfather Mehr Din was alive and he could not have any locus standi in the presence of Mehr Din. There being no merit in the petition it is there-- fore dismissed.