P L D (Rev (PLP)

AKHTAR HUSSAIN, F. C. R.--‑This is a revision petition against the order dated 19th July 1953, of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, by which he accepted the appeal of Maula Dad, respondent, in regard to a mutation of gift made in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh, Mst. Sahibi, respondent No. 2, and directed .that the order of the Assistant Collector II Grade rejecting the mutation should be restored. The facts of the case are that Mst. Sahibi, widow of one Ghulam, who was admittedly recorded as owner of land measuring 837 Kanals and 11 Marlas (according to custom she would have life interest only), made a gift by a registered deed in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh. A mutation was entered, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector II Grade on the ground that Mst. Sahibi had gifted more than her legal share, and also that the Senior Sub‑Judge in a civil suit had held the transaction as ineffectual for the purposes of reversionary rights of Haji Maula Dad, respondent No. 1, after the death of the donor Mst. Sahibi respondent No.

2. On appeal the Collector found that Mst. Sahibi had not exceeded her share as recorded in the revenue papers, and further that the judgment of the Civil Court did not affect the case for the purposes of this mutation because the gift was to be ineffectual only after the death of the donor, and directed the acceptance of the mutation. The Commissioner, to whom the case went up in second appeal, relying on the following rulings of the Financial Commissioner, reported as :‑ 1. 1929 L L T 36.

2. Janat Bibi v. Mehr Khan (P L D (Rev.) 1952 Pb. 20.).

3. Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Shaf (P L D (Rev.) 1952 Pb. 19.). set aside the order of the Collector and restored that of the Assistant Collector II Grade. I find that in the authority quoted as 1929 L L T 36, the factum of possession was considered relevant only with reference to a principle laid down in 5 P R 1912 (Rev.) that when possession has taken place in pursuance of a contract the Mutation Officer should sanction mutation irrespective of Customary Law considerations. In this case we are dealing with a registered document in which it has been recited that possession has passed, and, therefore, no proof of actual transfer of possession is necessary. A mutation should not be refused merely because it is claimed that the alienor has any (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. Actually in the judgment of the Civil Court referred to in the orders of the subordinate officers, there is a finding to the effect that the gift which is the subject of dispute was complete `and it could not be challenged on that ground. That being so, the Revenue Officer had no other alternative but to sanction the mutation. In this respect I respectfully differ from my predecessor in the rulings given by him in the authorities quoted as :‑ (1) Janat Bibi v. Mehr Khan (supra). (2) Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Shafi (supra). Mutations are simple proceedings and their procedure should not be made complicated by introducing such questions as determination of title or rights according to custom or Shariat or any other law. The scope of mutation proceedings, should be very simple and they should be decided in' accordance with section 37 of the Land Revenue Act, i.e., on the basis of facts proved, or admitted to have occurred, or such as are supported by a decree or order. The authority, which is on all fours with the present case, is 1932 L L T 114 in which reliance has been placed on 5 P R 1912 which lays down that because a widow has no right to alienate her property, should not affect the Revenue Officer sanctioning a mutation if possession has passed. Where the fact of possession having passed is recited in a registered deed, a Revenue Officer may properly act on presumption given by that deed: at any rate as between the parties to the deed. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner dated 19th July 1953, and restore that of the Collector dated 1st May 1953, and direct that mutation should be effected in accordance with the registered deed. Announced. A. H. Petition accepted.