Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 592' of 1959‑60, decided on 18th June 1963.

paras. 7 & 11‑Mutation of gifts of land in favour of wife, two widowed daughters and major son entered in Roznamcha Waqiati on 20th September 1958‑Sanction given on 23rd October 1958‑Genuine ness of intention of donor‑No point for consideration‑Delivery of possession to donees not proved‑Held, wife alone entitled to benefit of gift without change of possession.

This is a suo motu revision against an order, dated the 26th of September, 1959 passed by the Land Commissioner, Multan, whereby ‑he validated the gifts made by the donor, Sufi Ata Muhammad, in favour of his wife, daughters and son.

The facts of the case are that a report was made in the Roznamcha Waqiuti on the 20th of September 1958 with regard to the gifts mentioned above. The mutations were sanctioned on the 23rd of October 1958. When the question of validation of these gifts came up for consideration, the Deputy Land Commis sioner did not recommend validation. The Land Commissioner, however, validated the gifts.

Subsequently, the Land Commissioner (Touring and Inspec tion) examined these mutations and recommended revision on the ground that neither the transfer of possession had taken place nor the mutations had been implemented so far as the khasra zirdawari was concerned. The case was, therefore, taken up suo motu on the revisional side.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent at great length. The previous portion of his arguments was mainly intended to point out the genuineness of the intention under which the gift was made. It was pointed out that earlier gifts had been made by Soofi Ata Muhammad in favour of his sons but subsequently there were exchanges for the purposes of consolida tion. During these exchanges, the parity of the shares of the various donees was disturbed and, on 11th September 1957, there was an agreement to the effect that Soofi Ata Muhammad will make further gifts not only to remove the disparity but also make further gifts with a view to ensuring that the shares of the various heirs according to the Shariat Law were properly adjusted. So far as the genuineness of the intention is concerned, the matter need not be gone into because the relevant question to consider is whether the transactions were complete before the enforcement of Martial Law Regulation or not.

In this case, the donees fall in the following three categories :‑----

(a) wife;

(b) two widowed daughters; and .

(c) son.

So far as the wife is concerned, the law and the rulings are quite clear that when a gift is made b a husband in favour of his wife, the change of possession is not necessary for the comple tion of the gifts. In the case of wife, the gifts have, therefore, to be assumed to be complete on the day they were made.

So far as the daughters are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended before me that they are widowed daughters living with the donor and, therefore, the condition about the change of possession would not be applicable in the case of gifts made in their favour also. In support thereof two affidavits have been produced. These affidavits are in the nature of admission in favour of the person making it and, therefore, have no evidential value. I am afraid, I cannot hold that, in the case of these two daughters, the position was such that the condition about the change of possession was not necessary for the completion of the gift.

So far as the son is concerned, the 'learned counsel for the respondent has produced three documents namely, Exh. R‑I, Exh. R‑II and Exh. R‑III. Exh. R‑III is an agreement to sell wheat by the donee Nawab Nasrullah Khan to Bashir & Co. This agreement does not say from which portion of the land the wheat was to come. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that I should presume that the wheat was coming from the land in dispute on the ground that the seller was shown to be a resident of Ghafoorwah. I am afraid, mere mention of residence is not sufficient to establish that the wheat was coming from the land in dispute.

Exh. R‑I is a receipt given to Nawab Nasrullah Khan by Bashir & Co. In this case also, it cannot be established that the wheat which was given by Nawab Nasrullah Khan to Bashir & Co., came from the land in dispute.

The next document produced is Exh. R‑II which is a letter given by the Australasia Bank Limited on the 22nd of January 1963. It says that Cheques for Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000 were issued by Messrs Bashiruddin & Co., to Nawab Nasrullah Khan on 23rd June 1958. In this letter, only cheques are mentioned. There is no mention of the wheat or the land in dispute.

In these circumstances, I cannot hold that the gifts were complete before Martial Law in the case of the son, Nawab Nasrullah Khan.

As a result of this analysis, I direct that the gifts in favour of the wife only would be validated so far as Mutation Nos. 60 and 61 mentioned above are concerned. As regards the gifts made through these mutations in respect of the daughters and the son, no validation shall be allowed.

S. Q. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.