P L D (Rev (PLP)

SAIDULLAH KHAN, F. C.-In his lengthy note dated the 13th November 1950, the learned Commissioner has reproduced the facts of this case fully and it will not, therefore, be necessary to reiterate them here a second time. The issue involved in this case was indeed a simple one and that is whether Mst. Bhagan, the widow of Nizam Din, could make a valid gift in favour of her daughter, the petitioner (Mst. Ghulam Fatima), of an estate in which she had a limited in terest, namely, life interest only. The reply to the question is indeed in the negative. The position, as far as I have been able to appreciate it, is this that one Nizam Din executed a will whereby half of his estate on his death was to go to the son of Mst. Bhagan from her former husband and the other half to his real brother, Suleman, with whom Nizam Din was a co-sharer in land measuring 260 kanals and 13 marlas in village Chak No. 2 Abbottabad, Tahsil Chunian. Bhagan, according to the will, was to enjoy the share of her son from the former husband during her lifetime and then the estate was to go to her son. Sometime in 1930, Mst. Bhagan made a gift of half of the estate of her husband in favour of her son which he was to inherit after her death but this was contested by Suleman in a Civil Court with the result that statuts quo was maintained and the property was to remain in possession of the widow for life. About 19 years later i.e., 1949 Mst. Bhagan made another attempt to gift away the estate of her deceased husband by a registered deed dated the 20th July, 1949, in favour of her daughter, now the petitioner, but the revenue officer rejected the mutation on the score of the widow having a life interest in the estate. An appeal preferred against this order before the Collector was also rejected vide the Collector's order dated the 10th February, 1950. The learned Commissioner, while making reference, seems to have lost sight of the fact that a person, in this case the widow of Nizam Din, who has a life interest in the estate, cannot alienate the estate by means of a gift or sale and the fact of registration therefore, will not confer a better title on a person than that given to him by law. A similar gift made by Mst. Bhagan in favour of her son, though aimed at accelerating the process of transfer as the son was to succeed to the estate on her death, was rightly rejected by a Civil Court and its rejection on the second occasion by the Collector appears perfectly justified. I am, therefore, unwilling to accept these recommendations. Parties to be informed accordingly. A.H.