Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.D-389 of 1977, decided on 2nd November, 1983.

---Art .199--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [ M . L. R.115 ], paras 25 to 29--Gift--Donee minor child of donor--In case of gift in favour of minor delivery of possession, held, not necessary, held.--[Gift].

Mir Ali Ahmed Talpur v. Federal Land Commission P L D 1976 Kar. 316 ref.

--Art. 199--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R. 115] paras. 25 & 29--Gift--Petitioner's wife, Paradanashin lady living with him--After gift had been made, gifted property mutated in record-of-rights in name of his wife--Any fraud or manipulation as regards mutation not alleged- Held, possession of land would have been presumed to have been delivered to wife by petitioner.--[Gift].

Muhammad Yousuf Leghari for Petitioners.

S.Naqi Mirza for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1983.

--Petitioner No.1 was a declarant under M.L.R.115, petitioner No.2 is the minor son of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.3 is his wife and petitioner No.4 is the brother of petitioner No.1. By order dated 8-8-1972 the Land Commissioner Sind declared the gifts made by the petitioner No.1 in favour of his minor son and wife as valid and by order dated 15-6-1972 he declared the alientation by way of partition in favour of the brother of the petitioner No.1 as bona fide. The inspection team of the Federal Land Commission raised objections about the validity of the aforesaid alienations and in suo motu revision under paragraph 29 of M.L.R, 115, after hearing the petitioners, the Federal Land Commission declared the aforesaid alienations as void. This order dated 20-9-1976 of the Officer-on-Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, is impugned in the present constitutional petition. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Laghari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Naqi Mirza, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. As regards the gifts in favour of the minor son and wife of petitioner No.1, the only ground on which the alienations were declared to be void by the Federal Land Commission was that there was no transfer of possession of gift lands. In case of the gift in favour of his minor son, the law is clear on the point that no delivery of possession is necessary for a gift to be completed where the donee is a minor child of the donor. The case of Mir Ali Ahmed Talpur v. Federal Land Commission P L D 1976 Kar. 316 supports the case of the petitioners on this point.

3. As regards the gift in favour of the wife, it may be observed that the wife of petitioner No.1 is a "pardanashin" lady living with the petitioner No.1 and after the gift had been made, the gifted property had been mutated in the record-of-rights in the name of his wife. There is no allegation of any fraud or manipulation as regards the mutation. In these circumstances, it will be presumed that the possession of the lands had been delivered to the wife by petitioner No.1.

4. As we are inclined to set aside the order of the Federal Land Commission to the extent it relates to invalidation of the gifts in favour of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3, learned counsel does not press this petition in relation to the order of the Federal Land Commission holding the deed of exchange to be void.

5. Constitutional Petition No. D-389 of 1977 is allowed to the extent that the portion of the order, dated 20-9-1976 of the Officer-on-Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, holding the gifts made by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 (minor son) and petitioner No.3(wife of Petitioner No.1) is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

M . A . K . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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