Under the general custom of the province, a daughter is a preferential heir to her father's self-acquired property over collaterals, and a daughter who inherits her father's self-acquired property as a limited owner can further transfer the property to her own children under the custom.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Unsuccessful plaintiff Abdul Hasan has filed the Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1979 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 7.5.1979 passed Sub Judge 1st Class, Gurgaon, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration as prayed for.

2. Abdul Hasan filed a suit for declaration against Smt. Kalsum, Smt. Rehmat, Smt. Akbari, Smt. Maryama, daughters of Smt. Jamila daughter of Wali Mohd. and Smt. Jamila daughter of Wali Mohd., defendants No. 1 to 5 respectively, and sought a declaration that the consent decree dated 1.3.1978 suffered by Smt. Jamila in favour of her daughters is illegal, null and void and does not effect the rights of the plaintiff.

3. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:-

The area of the suit land is 167 kanals 5 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Santhawari, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka and was owned by Wali Mohd., father of defendant No.5. After the death of Wali Mohd. this property was mutated in the name of defendant No.5 Smt. Jamila as a limited owner. Wall Mohd., was Meo by caste which is major agricultural tribe and he was governed by the custom of Punjab vide which, no female gets ownership right in the property inherited from Haryana in the matter of succession and alienation. Such a female only becomes a limited owner of the property and on her death the property reverts to the collaterals. This custom is so in respect of the ancestral as well as self-acquired properties. Thus, defendant No.5 had no power to alienate the same by depriving the rights of the collaterals. The plaintiff alleged that he is the collateral of Wali Mohd., in the third degree. The property in the hand of Wali Mohd. was ancestral. Even if defendant No.5 had inherited the property of Wali Mohd. by way of gift, Will or in some other form, the same will revert to the collateral after the death of defendant No.5 as she has no male issue or male line of descent. She had only four daughters. Defendants No. 1 to 4, the daughters of Smt. Jamila alleged that they had obtained a declaratory decree from the Court of Shri P. Kumar, Sub Judge 1st Class, Gurgaon on 1.3.1978 in their favour as against defendant No.5, their mother, on the allegation of private partition. That decree does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4. Any mutation in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 on the basis of that decree dated 1.3.1978 is meaningless. It is further stated by the plaintiff that defendants No. 1 to 4 were not the co-parceners with defendant No.5. They were not the members of the joint family with defendant No.5. The oral transfer of the immovable property in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 by defendant No.5 amounts to a gift which was invalid because a gift could only be in writing and by a registered document. With these broad allegations, the plaintiff has prayed that he is the owner of the suit property being a collateral of Wali Mohd.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 and they took the plea that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation; that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit. On merits, the stand of the said defendants was that Wali Mohd. was the owner of the suit property. Defendant No.5 did not become the limited owner. In fact, the suit land was Willed away by a registered Will dated 15.12.1974 by Wali Mohd. in favour of his daughter defendant No.5 Wali Mohd. was not governed by custom. A daughter is a better heir to any degree of collaterals in a case of non-ancestral property. Defendants No.5 was the absolute owner of the suit land and she had every right to alienate the same to her daughters in any way she likes. It was also not admitted that plaintiff is