P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Mutation‑

Oral gift‑Declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession to donee proved‑Mutation be sanctioned in favour of donee. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioners. This case relates to a gift of land measuring 27 acres situated in Chak No. 237/RB District Lyallpur made by Mst. Hassan Bibi widow of Sher Jhang, in favour of respondents. Mutation No. 287 of oral gift was entered by the Patwari on the report of Mst. Hassan Bibi, but by the time the mutation came up before the Assistant Collector, the donor Hassan Bibi, had died and, the mutation was rejected on the ground that neither the facts had been proved nor was possession of the land transferred. In appeal, however, the Collector, Lyallpur interfered on the main ground that the donor had made a statement before the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property to the effect that transfer of posses sion in favour of the donees had taken place. She had made an application to the Deputy Custodian for permission to make the gift if it was during the course of these proceedings that she had made this statement. He accordingly set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector and allowed the appeal. The learned Commissioner, Sargodha has maintained this order in second appeal. A revision has now been filed by Khair Muhammad and others, who are the reversioners of Sher Jhang, the last full owner. The main points argued by Kh. Abdul Rahim the learned counsel for the petitioners were that the gift was made about a week before the death of the donor who had not appeared before the Assistant Collector to make a statement in its support and that the land had not been transferred in favour of the donees. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that Mst. Hassan Bibi had stated in a petition filed by her before the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property that she had gifted the property in dispute to the donee and that possession had also been transferred in favour of the donees. Further a perusal of the original mutation shows that Hassan Bibi reported to the Patwari of the circle that she had gifted the property and had also transferred its possession in favour of the donees. It is, therefore, evident that the three conditions essential for the validity of a gift i.e., declaration acceptance and delivery of possession, were duly fulfilled in this case. As soon as the donor made a statement before the Deputy Custodian that the property had been gifted and possession transferred, the transaction was completed as required by law and the Assistant collector eras not justified in rejecting the mutation. Since the property in dispute is in occupation of tenants, the, transfer of possession by Hassan Bibi could only be symbolic and the tenants have agreed to attorn to the donees which is sufficient to complete the transaction of gift. The Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner have arrived at a concurrent finding in favour of the respondents and I see no reason to differ from them. I would, therefore, hold that there are sufficient grounds in favour of the order passed by the learned Commissioner and dismiss the revision petition. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.