JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. Judgment dated 12.10.2017 rendered in OWP No. 699/2008 titled “Mst. Taja v. Financial Commissioner and others”, is assailed by medium of this appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 2. Noticing precise factual matrix of the case shall be advantageous for appreciating the matter in its right perspective: (I) On the death of estate holder, Aziz Malik, mutation of succession bearing No. 13 has been attested by Naib Tehsildar on 31st July, 1975, in terms whereof estate of the deceased has been mutated in favour of son Jabbar Malik(appellant), daughter Mst. Taja (respondent No. 3) who at that time was minor and in favour of Mst. Shah Mali (widow) till remarriage. On the mutation, the genealogy has been reflected as under: Image (II) The mutation of succession has been attested while following customary law. (III) The procedure for record of mutation is prescribed in Standing Order 23-A. Part-II of the said Standing prescribes that the Patwari has to enter mutation promptly regarding any case of transfer by (i) inheritance within three months of the death of right holder, (ii) a registered deed, within one month of the receipt of memorandum. (IV) On the death of Aziz Malik, Patwari has entered mutation and thereafter has placed the same before the Tehsildar for attestation. (V) The Sri Pratap Jammu and Kashmir Laws (Consolidation) Act, Svt. 1977 (1920 AD) provides the manner of administration of laws by the civil and criminal courts of the State. Section 4(1)(d) is reproduced here-under: “(d) in question regarding succession, inheritance, special property of females, betrothals, marriage, divorce, dower, adoption, guardianship, minority, bastardy, family relations, wills, legacies, gifts, waqf, partitions, castes or any religious usage or institution, the rules of decision is and shall be the Mohammedan Law in cases where the parties are Mohammedans and the Hindu Law in cases where the parties are Hindus, except in so far as such law has been, by this or any other enactment, altered or abolished or has been modified by any custom applicable to the parties concerned which is not contrary to justice, equity and good conscience and has not been, by this or any other enactment, altered or abolished, and has not been declared to be void by any competent authority;” (VI) Section 5 is also relevant to be quoted: “5. Customs and mercantile usages. Customs and mercantile usages. All local customs and mercantiles usages shall be regarded as valid, unless they are contrary to justice, equity and good conscience, or have been, or shall be, declared to be void by any competent authority. “ (VII) Two Sections read conjointly provide that all local customs shall be regarded as valid unless contrary to justice, equity and good conscience or have been or shall be declared to be void by any competent authority. (VIII) In the State of Jammu and Kashmir different customs regarding inheritance are followed in different parts. The customs as were prevalent were compiled by Pandit Sant Ram Dogra. The validity of the customs was challenged before this Court. Same was decided by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Mohammad Akbar Bhat v. Mohammad Akhoon and others, (1972) AIR(J&K) 105. The majority view is that all these are not customs without a purpose but they have a deep significance and have considerable influence on the economy of the villagers. So long as the legislature, through elected representatives of the people do not enact any law which makes the personal law of the parties the rule of succession. These customs should be respected and adhered to. (IX) The concept of 'Khana Beeron' and 'Khana Nisheen' is the incident of custom. Likewise, inheritance by widow lifetime is also an incident of custom. 'Khana Nisheen' daughter means a daughter for whom son-inlaw, on wedding, is brought to reside in the parental house of the daughter whereas 'Khana Beeron' means a daughter who, on the wedding, accompanies her husband to her in-law's house. As per customary law, 'Khana Beeron' daughter is excluded from succession whereas 'Khana Nisheen' daughter succeeds to the share like a son. The widow has to get share till she remarries. It is this custom which has been followed while attesting mutation No. 13, in terms whereof, Mst. Raja, being a 'Khana Beeron' daughter has been excluded from succession. The widow has been given share till remarriage or till death, whichever is earlier whereas in case of minor daughter share is given. (X) When Mst. Taja attained majority, she is shown to have appeared before Tehsildar and stated that she is not interested in inheriting the property, as a result whereof, mutation No. 51 has been attested. The widow has been given share till remarriage or till death, whichever is earlier whereas in case of minor daughter share is given. (X) When Mst. Taja attained majority, she is shown to have appeared before Tehsildar and stated that she is not interested in inheriting the property, as a result whereof, mutation No. 51 has been attested. (XI) Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Sharita) Application Act, 2007 (for short Act of 2007), came into force in the year 2007. Section 2 of the Act is relevant to be quoted: “2. Application of Personal Law to Muslims. notwithstanding any custom or usages to the contrary, in all questions regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lain, Khula and mubaraat, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). (XII) By this legislation, the customary law is not now applicable because the rule of decision in case of Muslims has to be in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. In terms of Section 3 of the said Act, the provisions of the Sri Pratap Jammu and Kashmir Laws (Consolidation) Act stand repealed in so far as those are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 2007. Section 4(1)(d) as quoted hereinabove, to the extent it provides for following Mohammedan law in case of Mohammedans regarding succession is saved. (XIII)The legislation has a prospective effect unless specifically provided to have retrospective effect. (XIV) Be that as it may, the matter of succession among the parties has been reopened in the year 2002 when Mst. Taja filed an appeal against mutation No. 51 before Collector after a lapse of 20 years. (XV) Mst. Taja (respondent No. 3), after attaining majority, has appeared before Tehsildar on 7th April, 1981, while mutation of succession on attaining majority was taken up for attestation. In the order recorded thereon dated 07.04.1981, respondent Mst. Taja, in presence of other villagers including Chowkidar (village guard) has stated that she is married outside her residence i.e. 'Khana Beeron' therefore, she is not inclined to take any share from the estate of her father. It has also been added that Shah Mali (widow) has also died. In the order recorded thereon dated 07.04.1981, respondent Mst. Taja, in presence of other villagers including Chowkidar (village guard) has stated that she is married outside her residence i.e. 'Khana Beeron' therefore, she is not inclined to take any share from the estate of her father. It has also been added that Shah Mali (widow) has also died. Tehsildar has made it clear to Mst. Taja that it is not necessary for her to say that she is not inclined to take the share but she has insisted, based on that share of Mst. Taja as was mutated in her favour vide mutation No. 13, has been mutated in the name of appellant (son of the deceased). It is also relevant to mention here that when mutation No. 13 was attested, at that time another daughter, Mst. Raja, was excluded from succession on the ground of having married as 'Khana Beeron' daughter. (XVI) It appears that later on there was some development which necessitated execution of a document under the style “confirmation to relinquishment” which has been executed by Mst. Taja on 12th October, 1983. The recital of the document suggests that Mst. Taja has made it clear that she is well settled in her in-law's house who have lot of property, she shall have no right vis-a-vis property of the deceased, she has no objection to the mutation as attested. If she lays any claim, same shall be deemed as void. The said document has been notarized. (XVII) Mst. Taja, again woke up from deep slumbers which led to the filing of an appeal before Collector (SDM), Sopore, in the year 2002 against mutation No. 51 dated 07.04.1981, means after a delay of 20 years. The Collector taking note of all factual positions has declined to condone the delay, consequently has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, vide his detailed judgment dated 16.03.2004. (XVIII) Aggrieved by the judgment of the Collector, a revision petition has been filed before the Settlement Commissioner, who, in terms of Section 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act recommended setting aside of the mutation on the ground that SDM, Sopore, was not having jurisdiction and secondly title of the immovable property could be transferred on the basis of relinquishment by oral statement. (XIX) Learned Financial Commissioner noticing the consent given by the parties at the time of attestation of mutation, highlighted various factual aspects including prevalence of custom and the Personal Law, has rejected the reference and has thereby upheld the order dated 07.04.1981 recorded on mutation No. 51. (XX) Appellant feeling aggrieved of the order of Financial Commissioner dated 12.08.2008, filed writ petition(OWP) No. 699/2008, which has been allowed vide judgment impugned dated 12.10.2017, hence the instant appeal. 3. The order on mutation has been passed in presence of respondent Mst. Taja, which fact she has re-affirmed while executing confirmation agreement on 10th October 1983. How could such a huge delay be condoned when there is no acceptable explanation forthcoming. After all, in the year 1981 when mutation has been attested, respondent Mst. Taja was major. She is shown to have made a statement in presence of village body including village guard. Then in the order of mutation it is clearly mentioned that the Tehsildar has made it clear to her that she is not bound to say that the property shall be mutated in favour of her brother, despite that she has stated that the property shall be mutated in favour of her brother. The position of attestation of mutation has been reaffirmed in the deed of confirmation of relinquishment dated 12th October, 1983. Such a person cannot be allowed to claim condonation of delay, that too without any justified cause. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mst Khati and others Vs. Ali Mohammad Sofi and anr., (2014) 4 JKJ 106 (HC). In the reported judgment, the mutation order was challenged after a period of 25 years. There was no explanation for challenging the mutation after such a long period. It was noticed that the mutation had been attested on the basis of statement of the daughters of the deceased which was not challenged for a long period, therefore, case was held to be hit by latches. The law laid down in the reported judgment squarely covers the case of the appellant 5. Learned Single Judge has not noticed the aforesaid facts and law. The judgment impugned runs contrary to the law as has been laid down in Khati's judgment referred above. 6. The law laid down in the reported judgment squarely covers the case of the appellant 5. Learned Single Judge has not noticed the aforesaid facts and law. The judgment impugned runs contrary to the law as has been laid down in Khati's judgment referred above. 6. It is to be made clear that the attestation of mutation of succession is for updating the revenue records for fiscal purposes. Upholding the order of mutation shall not deprive the aggrieved party from having recourse to other remedies including filing of a civil suit as may be permissible and available. 7. The question of relinquishment of rights is not an issue to be looked into. Normally on the death of estate holder, as a matter of course, succession mutation has to be in-keeping with the mandate of Standing Order 23-A. Accordingly, initial mutation No. 13, on the death of Aziz Malik, was attested on 31st July, 1975. Another daughter of the deceased, namely, Mst. Raja, who at that time was married 'Khana Beeron', had been excluded from succession, therefore, exclusion or relinquishment will not operate as a bar to the aggrieved party for having recourse to the available remedial measures. 8. The order passed by learned Single Judge dated 12.10.2017, for the stated reasons and circumstances, is unsustainable, as such, set aside. The observations made hereinabove shall remain confined only to the position of attestation of mutation and challenge thereto. In case Mst. Taja choses to have recourse to other permissible remedial measures, same proceedings shall be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction on its own merits. 9. Appeal succeeds, shall stand disposed of as above.