P L D 1964 W (PLP)

‑Sale by widow (limited owner)‑Not valid --Mutation may be attested. (b) Alienation‑

Widow‑Alienation by widow‑Whether void or voidable ‑ Complicated question of law and fact ‑ Revenue Officer not competent to go into, in summary way. This revision petition relates to an oral sale of 24 acres of land situated in village Jandanwala, District Mianwali, made by Mst. Ghafoori, widow of Munshi in favour of the present respondents through mutation No. 616 sanctioned by the Assis tant Collector on 20‑1v‑

190. In appeal, the case was remanded by the Collector. Mianwali for fresh decision after making inquiries whether the vendor inherited the property under the Shariat Act or had succeeded to it as a limited owner. The Assistant Collector re‑examined the mutation but confirmed his previous order. The Collector, Mianwali again interfered in appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector on the ground that Mst, Ghafoori was a limited owner and was thus not entitled to alienate the property in dispute. This order was, however, reversed in second appeal by the learned Commissioner Sargodha who relying on Muhammad Khalas v. Muhammad Akbar and others (P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 111) allowed the transaction to be attested. A revision has now been filed by the reversioners of Munshi, the last full owner. Three main points were argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners firstly ; that the vendor. Mst. Ghafoori, had died before making a statement to the Revenue Officer in favour of the transaction of sale ; secondly, that possession of the land had not been transferred and thirdly, that Mst. Ghafoori, being a limited owner, was not competent to transfer the land in dis pute by way of sale or gift. A perusal of the original mutation shows that Mst. Ghafoori, identified by Ilam Din Pattidar, appeared in person before the Assistant Collector on 30‑4‑1960, and made a statement in favour of the transaction. It was con tended that according to a certificate issued by the District Health Officer, Mianwali, Mst. Ghafoori, died on 20‑4‑1960; and, therefore, her statement recorded before the Assistant Col lector on 30‑4‑1960, was not in fact made by her, but by some one else. Mr. Rafique Qureshi, the learned counsel for the respondents, invited my. attention to another certificate issued by the Moharrir, Police Post Jandanwala showing 7‑5‑1960, as the date of death of Mst. Ghafoori. It was admitted by the parties that an effort was made by the petitioners to get the entries in the Police Register maintained at Jandanwala Police Post tam pered with which resulted in an inquiry against the Police Moharrir, Obviously the matter has been rendered doubtful by the conduct of the petitioners who unsuccessfully tried to get these entries changed. The Assistant Collector, however, arrived at the right conclusion through summary inquiry that Mst. Ghafoori had died on 7‑5‑1960 after making a statement of the sale before him. As regards transfer of possession the record shows that the land in dispute was in possession of tenants who had agreed to attorn to the vendees. Regarding the third point it has been held in a number of cases that the alienations made by widows are not void ab initio but are voidable at the instance of the aggrieved party. This is a complicated question of fact and law and the Revenue Officers are not competent to go into it in a summary way while deciding mutations. These questions had best be left for determination by the civil Courts where issues are properly framed and parties are examined, cross‑examined and re‑examined. In the circumstances I would hold that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Commissioner. The revision petition has no force and stands dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.