FATEH MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SAKINA BIBI And Other
The petitioner, a father, sought special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a gift of land made to his daughters. The petitioner had originally filed a suit for a declaration that the mutation of the land in favour of his daughters was fraudulent and that no gift had been made. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in his favour, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, finding that the gift was valid and that the petitioner had perfected it by transferring possession. The High Court subsequently declined to interfere with these findings in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the validity of the gift. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the local patwari and Naib-Tehsildar confirmed the petitioner's presence and participation in the mutation process. Furthermore, evidence regarding the payment of Batai by tenants to the donees established that possession had been transferred. Finding no infirmity in the lower appellate court's conclusions, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the gift.
- Can a gift of land be considered perfected if the donor has transferred possession to the donees?
- Does the attestation of a mutation by a revenue officer, supported by evidence of possession transfer, constitute sufficient proof of a valid gift?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the existence of a gift, upheld by the High Court in revision, liable to be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner in this petition for special leave to appeal is the father of the respondents. When the mother of the respondents died he had no male issue. On 9-7-1974 a mutation was attested by the local revenue officer whereby the petitioner was alleged to have gifted about a square of land situate in Chak No. 135/M in Tehsil Chistian in favour of three of his daughters. Later, he married again and from the second wife he has a number of children. On 18-7- 1977 he instituted a suit for a declaration that he had never made any gift in favour of his daughters and that the mutation had been attested fraudulently. He also sought permanent injunction to restrain his daughters from interfering with his rights of ownership in the land. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. However, on appeal by the daughters the Additional District Judge held that the gift in fact had been made by the petitioner and that he had perfected it by transfer of possession of the land in question to the respondents. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the High Court which declined to interfere with the findings of the Additional District Judge. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. To prove the gift the donees examined the local patwari who had entered a mutation and the Naib-Tehsildar who had passed the order of attestation. The patwari stated that he had entered the mutation at the instance of the petitioner. The Naib-Tehsildar deposed that at the time of the attestation the petitioner was present in person. The land in dispute was admittedly in the possession of Muhammad Amin and Sardar. It may be mentioned that Sardar was one of the sons-in-law of the petitioner. Both Muhammad Amin and Sardar stated that they had been paying Batai to the donees. There was thus, sufficient evidence on the record to prove the gift and transfer of possession to the donees. Thus, the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on these questions do not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court, therefore, very properly declined to interfere with them. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.