1992 PLP 583 (CLC)

One Hasan Muhammad predecessor‑in‑interest of the parties alienated his land comprising 99K‑16M situated in Chak No.28/DNA, Tehsil Bahawalpur in favour of his sons (Respondents 1 and 2) by way of Tamleek Mutation No.106 dated 17‑1‑1985. Later on, the said respondents by way of Mutation No.i17 (Tamleek) dated 16‑4‑1986 gifted 36‑K of land in favour of their mother.

2. The petitioner who is the daughter of Hasan Muhammad donor, challenged those transactions before the AC/Collector on the plea that her father had also owned 14‑K of land in Chak No.9, Tehsil Chishtian, DistricC Bahawalnagar. On his demise, the land of this village was mutated in favour of all the legal heirs (including petitioner) vide Mutation No.1060 dated 18‑11‑1986 but in the other village (Chak No.28/DNB) that principle was not adopted and the share of the petitioner was usurped by way of Tamleek. The Collector vide his order dated 28‑2‑1989, set aside the mutations and directed the Revenue Officer to decide these mutations afresh amongst the legal heirs of the deceased keeping in view Mutation No.1060 of Chak No.9, Tehsil Chishtian. Being aggrieved by that order of the Collector, respondents 1 and 2 filed appeal against cancellation of Mutation No.106, whereas respondent No.3 filed appeal against cancellation of Mutation No.7. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur vide his orders dated 12‑11‑1989 set aside the order of the Collector on the ground that appeals of the petitioner before the Collector were time‑barred and gift was held to be genuine. Since the respondents 1 and 2 had become owners of the disputed land so they were authorised to further gift out the land in favour of their mother. Resultantly mutations Nos.106 and 117 remained in the field. Hence these revision petitions under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967,

3. This single order shall dispose of these interconnected revision petitions. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Additional Commissioner has misconstrued the facts of the cases and he was of the view that Mutation No.106 was of gift whereas the same was of Tamleek and not of gift. The learned Court stressed that according to law Tamleek is always to the extent of shares of all the heirs and because the disputed Mutation No.106 was of Tamleek therefore it could only be to the extent of the respectives shares of respondents in the inheritance of the deceased and not more than that. All the heirs had not been shown in the disputed mutation whereas they had been shown in Mutation No.1060 of Chak No.9, Tehsil . It was prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside. The daughter had illegally been deprived of the inheritance as was the custom in Punjab.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained that Hassan Muhammad had gifted the disputed area to his sons and Ulfat Rasool etc., had gifted the same in favour of their mother by way of Mutation No.117. The gift had been completed according to Muslim Law in all its three essentials which were (i) a declaration of gift by the donor, (ii) an acceptance of the gift; and (iii) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. Petitioner Mst. Salina Begum was the daughter of Hassan Muhammad ‑deceased and she had duly received her share of the property. If there was any allegation of fraud, then the petitioner should go to the Civil Court as the impugned order had been correctly passed.

6. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the difference between Tamleek and gift. According to him, a Tamleek can be made in favour of all the heirs according to the extent of their shares whereas a gift is not related to the heirs. However, the learned counsel has not been able to support his contention from the law or the case‑law. There appears to be no difference in gift and Tamleek, as is evident from section 142 of the Mulla's Mohammadan Law, which is reproduced as under:‑ "

142. Extent of donor's power.‑‑A gift as distinguished from a will, may be made of the whole of the donor's property, and it may be made even to an heir." Mutation No.106 of Chak No.28/DNB was a mutation of gift by Hassan Muhammad deceased in favour of his sons during his lifetime. Gift in favour of one or more heirs is generally described as Tamleek in the Revenue Record for sake of convenience but in essence it cannot be differentiated from a Gift as defined in section 138 of Mulla's Mohammadan Law. The term `Tamleek' has no legal sanctity behind it and is not mentioned in Mulla's Muhammadan Law at all. The gift of 36 Kanals of land by respondent Ulfat Rasool etc., in favour of their mother Mst. Hajiran is also similarly unexceptionable. The revision petitions, being devoid of force, are dismissed. A.A./395/R Revision petitions dismissed.