P L D 1964 W (PLP)

West Pakistan KHADIM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑

Petitioners versus HAYAT‑

Respondent Revision No. 1174 of 1962‑63, decided on 26th October 1963, i‑=t District Gujraqwala. (a) Mutation‑

Sanctioned on basis of registered gift deed wherein change of possession recited. (b) Mutation‑

Proceedings summary in character ‑ Revenue Officer should not enter into complicated question of fact. (c) Mutation‑

Cannot be refused merely on ground that gift deed relating to land in Gujranwala was registered at Lahore. The facts of this revision petition, briefly are, that one Khushia died on 22‑1‑1962 and the Assistant Collector Wazirabad, by his order, dated 18‑12‑1962, passed on mutation No. 3 of village Bdddha Rajawa, district Gujranwala, decided his inheritance in favour of Hayat, respondent, who is a collateral. At the time of attestation of this mutation a registered document dated 14‑12‑1960 gifting the land in dispute by Khushia deceased in favour of the petitioners was produced before the Revenue Officer but it was not accepted by him for the main reason that possession had not been transferred in favour of the donees. The Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner have refused to interfere in appeal and revision. A second revision has now been filed. The main point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Khushia deceased had gifted the property in dispute is their favour through a registered document about two years before his death, and this document recited the fact that possession has been transferred to the donees. In these circumstances the officers below were not justified in refusing to implement the registered deed of gift in the revenue records. The learned counsel for the respondent sow d that since actual possession had not been transferred in, favour of the donees the gift was not complete in the eyes of law and was thus rightly ignored. I do not agree with this argument. No doubt in cases of transfer by gift the fact of transfer of possession to the donee counts a good deal, but where change of possession is recited in a registered deed, the Revenue Officers should act on the pre sumption that the possession has passed. This has been the view of', the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue expressed in a number of decisions and I find no reason to digger with them. Mutation proceedings are summary in character and it is not for B the Revenue Officers to enter into complicated questions of fact and law which require determination by the civil Courts. In this case the registered deed of gift contains a recital of transfer of possession in favour of the donees which is sufficient for the Revenue Officers to presume at least between the parties to the deed that possession bad changed. It was not required of him to start an enquiry, which at best could only be summary in character and thus not conclusive, as regards the plea of the collateral that possession was not with the donees. Another objection raised is that property in dispute is situated in Gujranwala district whereas the deed was registered at Lahore, which raises a doubt about its genuineness. There is no force in this argument either. According to section 30(2) of the Registration Act the Registrar Lahore may receive and register any document without regard to the situation of the property to which the document relates. Thus the mere fact that the deed was registered at Lahore is not sufficient to throw it out. In the circumstances it seems a fit case for exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 16 of Land Revenue Act. I would, accordingly accept the revision petition, set aside the orders passed by the Officer below and direct that the mutation should he sanctioned in accordance with the registered deed of gift. K. M. A. Petition accepted.