ORDER : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. By medium of this appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, judgment dated 18.11.2015, passed by learned Single Judge in OWP No. 867/2010, is assailed. 2. Precise factual matrix of the case is required to be noticed for appreciating the matter in its right perspective: (I) Sultan Bhat (deceased) is survived by six daughters (appellants and respondents No. 5 to 7) and a son, Mohammad Maqbool (respondent No. 1). The deceased had landed property at two places i.e. in village Chundina and in village Shala Bugh. (II) Regarding estate situated in village Chundina, mutation on the basis of oral gift, on the statement of Sultan S/o. Nabir (owner) father of the parties, has been attested to the extent of 19 kanals 11 marlas in favour of respondent No. 1. (III) Vide mutation No. 587 dated 21.01.1989, mutation of inheritance vis-à-vis estate at Shalla Bugh has been attested vide mutation No. 2453 dated 2nd July, 1996 in favour of respondent No. 1. While following customary law, the daughters have been excluded from inheritance having been married outside parental home, in customary parlance known as "Khana Beeron". (IV) Mst. Rafiqa, one of the daughters, filed revision before Financial Commissioner Revenue against mutation No. 587 dated 21.01.1989 attested vis-à-vis estate situated in village Chundina. Same has been allowed vide order dated 20.08.2009 and case remanded to Tehsildar, Ganderbal, for passing fresh orders under the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 2007. (V) Against another mutation bearing No. 2453 dated 02.07.1996 attested vis-à-vis estate situated in village Shala Bugh, a separate revision petition has been filed by Mst. Rafiqa, which too has been allowed vide order dated 20.08.2009. Mutation order has been set aside and case remanded to Tehsildar, Ganderbal, for passing fresh orders under Shariat Application Act, 2007. (VI) Against the order dated 20.08.2009, appeal was filed before J & K Special Tribunal, Srinagar, which has been dismissed as not maintainable because the order of Financial Commissioner Revenue, was not passed under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. (VII) In pursuance to the order of Financial Commissioner dated 20.08.2009, fresh enquiry has been conducted vis-à-vis estate situated at Village Chundina. Respondent No. 1 (son) had also appeared and made a submission that the property of Sultan (deceased) may be attested in favour of legal heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. (VII) In pursuance to the order of Financial Commissioner dated 20.08.2009, fresh enquiry has been conducted vis-à-vis estate situated at Village Chundina. Respondent No. 1 (son) had also appeared and made a submission that the property of Sultan (deceased) may be attested in favour of legal heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. The Tehsildar after recording as to what had been stated by inhabitants of the village and respondent No. 1, has attested mutation on 22.11.2010 in favour of respondent No. 1 and the daughters as per Shariat Law which has not been challenged. (VIII) Respondent No. 1 (Mohammad Maqbool Bhat) filed writ petition (OWP) No. 867/2010 wherein both the orders dated 20.08.2009 passed by revisional authority (Financial Commissioner) were assailed. Learned Single Judge has observed that the revisional court has wrongly observed that the oral gift is invalid. (IX) Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.11.2015, instant appeal has been filed. 3. Mohammad Sultan Bhat, father of appellants, respondent No. 1 and respondents No. 5 to 7 has died in the year 1995. During his lifetime he has orally gifted 19 kanals 11 marlas of land situated at village Chundina in favour of his son Mohammad Maqbool (respondent No. 1), as is the position reflected and recorded in mutation No. 587 attested on 21.01.1989. Mohammad Sultan, as recorded by mutating officer in presence of respectable of the village including village guard, has stated that he has orally gifted 19 kanals 11 marlas of land in favour of his son so after his death nobody has a claim against the same. 4. After the death of Mohammad Sultan, mutation of inheritance for the estate situated in village Shala Bugh has been attested vide mutation No. 2453 dated 02.07.1996. The Tehsildar while attesting mutation has recorded that in the villages, in the matters of inheritance, custom is being followed, in terms whereof daughters married outside their parental home (Khana Beeron) are not given any share, therefore, has attested mutation in favour of son (respondent No. 1) to the exclusion of his sisters (daughters of deceased Sultan Bhat). 5. In the year 2006, appellant No. 1 (Mst. Rafiqa) filed two revision petitions, one against mutation No. 587 regarding estate situated at village Chundina, bearing file No. 390 and another against mutation No. 2453 regarding estate situated at village Shala Bugh bearing file No. 391. 5. In the year 2006, appellant No. 1 (Mst. Rafiqa) filed two revision petitions, one against mutation No. 587 regarding estate situated at village Chundina, bearing file No. 390 and another against mutation No. 2453 regarding estate situated at village Shala Bugh bearing file No. 391. Both the revision petitions have been disposed of vide two separate orders, both dated 20.08.2009. Both the mutations were set aside and case remanded to Tehsildar for passing fresh orders. 6. Regarding mutation No. 587, Tehsildar has passed fresh order on 22.11.2010, where-under estate situated at village Chundina has been mutated in favour of son and daughters of deceased Sultan Bhat. 7. Respondent No. 1 (son) challenged the two orders passed by the revisional authority both dated 20.08.2009 by medium of OWP No. 867/2010 and the learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned has set aside both the orders giving liberty to the daughters of the deceased to question the oral gift if so advised on the ground that the gift did not satisfy the essential ingredients. 8. In support of the finding that the oral gift is permissible, learned Single has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this court rendered in the case of "Ghulam Ahmad Sofi v. Mohd. Sidiq Dareel and others" AIR 1974 J&K 59 and also on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Hafeeza Bibi and others v. Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs and others" reported in (2011) 5 SCC 654 . Legal position vis-à-vis oral gift has been correctly appreciated i.e. oral gift under Muslim Personal Law is permissible, therefore, view regarding oral gift taken by the revisional authority (Financial Commissioner) that it is not permissible has been rightly negated. On such count, order of the revisional authority dated 20.08.2009 passed in respect of mutation No. 587 is correct but an important fact has escaped attention of the learned Single Judge i.e. mutation No. 587 was attested on 21.01.1989 in presence of Mohammad Sultan (father), he had made a statement before Tehsildar that he has orally gifted 19 kanals 11 marlas of land situated in village Chundina in favour of his son and possession has been delivered, therefore, it has been incorrectly recorded that the mutation has been attested after the death of Mohammad Sultan. 9. 9. Once finding is returned that the oral gift is permissible then mutation No. 587 could not be interfered with. The remedy to the party aggrieved as against oral gift could be agitated by the daughters by challenging validity of the gift by having recourse to appropriate proceedings which would include filing of the suit. When father, during his life time, has made it clear before the Tehsildar that he has orally gifted land in favour of his son, there could be no reason for Tehsildar not to attest mutation. So the attestation of mutation No. 587 is correct, as such, maintained. Order of the revisional court dated 20.08.2009 passed in file No. 390 and also the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, are set aside. Liberty to the daughters of the deceased to avail the remedial measures to challenge the oral gift, if they so choose, provided otherwise now it shall be permissible. If challenged, it shall be open to the concerned court/authority to decide the validity or otherwise of the oral gift on the ground as shall be available. 10. Coming to another mutation No. 2453 attested on 2nd July, 1996, after the death of Mohammad Sultan. Inheritance mutation has to be attested in terms of Standing Order 23-A, as such, has been attested but now the question is whether it has been correctly attested, answer has to be no because while applying customary law daughters of the deceased have been excluded from the right of inheritance. True it is, mutation of succession used to be attested while following customary law as was compiled by Pandit Sant Ram Dogra. The validity of customary law was challenged before this Court. Vide judgment rendered in the case of "Mohammad Akbar Bhat v. Mohammad Akhoon and others" AIR 1972 J&K 105 it was held to be valid but subsequently by application of Sri Pratap Jammu and Kashmir Laws (Consolidation) Act, 1977 (1920AD) and with coming into force Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 2007, the property has to be inherited by the daughters. 11. Mutation No. 2453 had been attested at the back of daughters of deceased Sultan Bhat, so in any case that mutation does not sustain, same is set aside. 11. Mutation No. 2453 had been attested at the back of daughters of deceased Sultan Bhat, so in any case that mutation does not sustain, same is set aside. The revisional authority while disposing of revision No. 391 has remanded case to Tehsildar, Ganderbal, for attesting mutation No. 2453 afresh, which order has also been upheld by the learned Single Judge. It is made clear that vis-à-vis estate situated at Shala Bugh, there is no question of oral gift, that is purely an inheritance mutation to be attested in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. Tehsildar, after hearing both the parties, shall hold enquiry on spot and attest mutation regarding estate of the deceased situated at Shala Bugh preferably within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is served upon him. 12. To sum up: (A) The mutation No. 587 regarding 19 kanals 11 marlas situated at village Chundina attested on 21.01.1989 during the life time of Mohammad Sultan Bhat on the basis of oral gift is upheld. Order dated 22.11.2010 passed thereon by Tehsildar shall be ignored. Liberty to the appellants and respondents 5 to 7 (daughters) to challenge the position of oral gift by having recourse to remedial measures as shall be available under law. (B) Mutation No. 2453 regarding estate situated at village Shala Bugh shall be attested afresh by Tehsildar in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. 13. Appeal succeeds. Order of the learned Single Judge, to the extent indicated above, shall stand modified.