P L D (Rev (PLP)

FIDA HASSAN, F. C.‑This is a petition revision against the order, dated 8th January 1953 of the Commissioner, Multan, whereby he accepted the appeal of Nusrat, etc. respondents against the order of Collector, Jhang and restored that of the Assistant Collector 11 Grade Jhang. The following pedigree‑table may be seen for a proper appre ciation of the facts of the case :‑ KARAM _______________|______________ | | Muhammad Salabat (pre-deceased) (petitioner) ____________|__________ | | | Nusrat Sultan Nur Karam made a gift of 1/3rd of his land in favour of Nuarat, Sultan and Nur sons of his son Muhammad, who had pre deceased him. Mutation No. 823 was accordingly entered by the Patwari on the 26th May 1951. Karam, appearing before the Revenue Officer on the 29th May 1951, admitted, having made the gift and transferred the possession of the land to his grandsons, but the Revenue Officer deferred the case for want of verification of the entries in the mutation‑sheet by the Field Kanungo. The case came up before the Revenue Officer again on the 30th July 1951 but in the meantime Karam bad died on the 20th July 1951. The mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on account of the admission of the donor having been made before him on a previous date. The Revenue Officer, however, made a mistake in sanctioning the mutation in regard to the whole of the land of Karam Instead of 1/3rd as admitted by him (Karam). Salabat, going in appal to the Collector against this order, contended that Karam was of unsound mind, as two previous mutations relating to gift at the instance of Karam had already been rejected. He also contended that the Revenue Officer had made a mistake in sanctioning mutation in respect of the entire estate of Karam. The Collector accepted the appeal, holding that Karam was a fickle‑minded person, and that obviously he was not in his senses, being an old man of 90, as he had twice before gone back on the oral gifts made by him in favour of Sarwar and Nusrat respectively, and thus rejected the mutation. On second appeal by Nusrat, etc,, the learned Commissioner held that Karam had made a valid gift which was not opposed to public policy, because on his demise, big grandsons would have been totaily deprived of a share in the inheritance owing to their father having pre‑deceased their grandfather. He accord ingly accepted the appeal and sanctioned the mutation. Salabat has now come up to me in revision against the Commissioner's order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, whom I have heard, failed to show in what manner the Commissioner's order was wrong. He simply argued that the two mutations Nos. 819 and 820 in respect of the previous gifts which had already been rejected, furnished ample evidence to show that Karam was of unsound mind and the Collector was, therefore, quite correct in holding that a person of unsound mind could not make a gift. It may be seen that the gift was an oral one and under the law, a Revenue Officer has no option but to reject a mutation if the donor denies having made a gift. The two previous mutations had perforce to be rejected by the Mutation Officer in view of Karam's denial. The law is equally clear on the point that an oral gift, which is not ab initio void and is duly testified to by the donor before the Revenue Officer, accompanied by an admission regarding transfer of posses sion, must be given effect to under a mutation. The mere rejection of the two previous mutations would not, therefore, be enough to hold that Karam was of unsound mind at the time of making the third gift. At the most, this is a circumstance which may go in favour of a party alleging Karam's unsoundness of mind, but the fact can only be established in a Civil Court. The Revenue Officer noticed nothing which may have suggested to him Karam's unsound ness of mind, and It was enough for the purposes of the summary inquiry that Karam had admitted both the gift and transfer of pos session in favour of the doneea. As regards the Mutation Officer's order gifting the entire estate of Karam in favour of the donees, it was a mistake made merely through ina6ertance, as neither the donor intended transferring his whole land to the donees nor the latter claimed more than 1/3rd of the estate in terms of the gift. Although the Assistant Collector did record in his order that the gift was in respect of 1/3rd of the property of the donor, in the operative part of the order the mutation was sanctioned in respect of 1/3rd of the Kbata. Karam, however, held only 1/3rd share in the Khata. The mistake is thus a clerical one and it need not vitiate the entire mutation proceedings. It can be easily corrected by a note under the mutation by the Revenue Officer. In the circumstances, I find no ground to interfere in the order of the Commissioner and reject the petition for revision. I direct that the mistake referred to above should be corrected by means of a note. A copy of this order should go to the Collector for necessary action. No order as to costs. Announced. A. H. Petition rejected.