P L D 1966 W (PLP)

This appeal has been filed against an order, dated the 27th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whereby he refused to validate gifts alleged to have been made by the appellant in favour of his wife and three daughters. The facts of the case are that the appellant is stated to have made the gifts mentioned above in 1956. On the 22nd March 1956, he bought a stamp paper and on 16th April 1956, he wrote what he termed as a Memorandum about an oral gift. No mutation was entered and no registration took place. After the imposition of the Martial Law, the appellant moved for the validation of the gift mentioned above. Enquiries were made but the. Deputy Land Commissioner did not recommend validation. The Land Commissioner agreed with the recommendations of the Deputy Land Commissioner and refused validation. Hence this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at great length. Actually, it is an oral gift and the Memorandum has been put up as an evidence of the oral gift. The learned counsel for the appellant wished that I should send for the register of the stamp vendor. I did not think it necessary for the simple reason that the register would only show that a stamp paper was purchased on 22nd March 1956. It would perhaps also show the purpose for which the document was being purchased. This would not really be of any help to the appellant as, in this case, the main question is whether this document should be accepted as a piece of evidence in respect of the oral gifts alleged to have been made by the appellant. It is conceded that, so far as revenue records are concerned, the possession still continues to be that of the donor. It was conceded before me that, as a matter of fact, the possession is still with the donor. It has, however, been argued that this possession is on behalf of the donees, the minor daughters and the wife. I, however, find that this very document on which reliance is placed, categorically says that possession was handed over to the donees and they were put in actual possession of the gifted land. It would thus be clear that this is a document which contains a statement which is not borne out to be correct. The learned counsel for the appellant desires that I should construe the words of this document as meaning that the possession of the donor was on behalf of the minors and the possession as mentioned in the document was given in this form to the donees. I am afraid, in view of the clear words used in the document itself, I cannot accept this contention. Besides oral evidence, there is no other documentary evidence in the form of any mutation having been entered. It was stated that no mutation could be entered because of family circum stances. The fact, however, remains that mutations which would have been one piece of evidence to prove the oral gift are not there. There has been no registration. Moreover, in this case, I find that the very document on which reliance is placed, is such as cannot be relied upon. In these circumstances, I see no justifica tion for interfering with the concurrent findings of the Deputy Land Commissioner, and the Land Commissioner. The appeal fails and is rejected hereby. Announced. It has been brought to my notice that, in the hope that the above‑mentioned gift would be validated, the appellant did not avail of the concessions permissible under para. 9 (f) of the Martial Law Regulation No.

64. Now that these gifts have been invalidated he should be allowed to avail of these concessions. Action should be taken on his application if and when he puts in one under paragraph 9 (f ) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64, irrespective of the fact that the prescribed period for putting in such applications has already expired. S. Q. Appeal rejected.