Find a Lawyer

Revision case No. 125 of 1946-47, referred by Commissioner, Rawal pindi Division, decided on 26^th, June, 1948.

, S. 37-Lease of minors property by mother under Registered deed-Possession delivered-Revenue Officer bound to sanction mutation-low con sideration or mother being not the guardian for property of minors, disregarded.

The transaction was based on a registered deed by which the possession had already been delivered to the lessee. In the circumstances the Revenue Officer was bound to sanction the mutation. It is not iris func tion to go into intricate questions of law. Such a transaction is a "fact" until it is set aside in due course of law.

-Chap. 7, paragraph 7.17. A mutation should not be refused merely because it is claimed that the alienor has no right by custom or statute to make such an alienation.

Abdul Aziz for the Petitioners.

Ghulam Mohyud-Diet-for the Respondent.

This is a reference case received from the Commissioner, Rawalpindi division.

The facts of the case have been fully given in the reference, dated 10th July 1947, made by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, and need pot be recapitulated here. Counsel for the petitioners has laid great Stress on the fact that the mother of the minors was, according to Muhammadan Law, neither a de facto nor a de jure guardian of the minors or custodian of their property and, as such., had no locus stand; to lease out their land on their behalf in favour of the respondent. The learned Commissioner has also emphasized the fact that ridiculously low consideration passed in the transaction and has attributed improper motives to the parties to the bargain, which is alleged to have adversely affected the interests of the minors. There may be force in all this, but the fact remains that the mother was, looking after the land on behalf of the minors and was in a position to deliver the goods. The transaction was based on a registered deed by which the possession had, already been delivered to the lessee respondent. In the circumstances, the Revenue Officer was bound to sanction the mutation as he did. It is not his function to go into intricate questions of Law. According to paragraph 7.17, Chapter VII of the Punjab Land Records Manual, a mutation should not be refused merely because it is claimed that the alienor has no right by custom or statute to make such an alienation. Such a transaction is a "fact until it is set aside in due course of law. These instructions completely cover the present case. I see no justification for accepting the recommendation made by the learned Commissioner and reject this petition for revision.

A. H. Appeal rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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