SAFEER AHMAD alias MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs ABDUL RASHEED and another

1. ' This Revision Application is directed against the conceurrent findings of the learned two Courts below to the effect that the applicant was not entitled to any relief in respect of the disputed property.

2. ' On facts, applicant/plaintiff is a grandson of Mst. Rehmat Bibi wife of Qutubuddin, who is said to have gifted the disputed property to him, as evidenced in a Deed of Gift transcribed on 8-4-1985.

3. At the relevant time, however, the applicant/plaintiff was a minor and delivery of possession was taken for him by his mother. On attaining majority, the applicant/plaintiff sought mutation of his name in the Excise and Taxation record but the respondent No,2 declined the same, such mutation, allegedly, being of a disputed nature. According to Dr. Hamid Ahmed Ayaz this dispute was raised by the respondent No,1 who is son of Mst. Rehmat Bibi, above-referred and father of the applicant/plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit from which this Revision Application arises was filed. In such suit, at the interlocutory stage, through counter-affidavit, the respondent No,1 admitted the title of the applicant/plaintiff, whereupon the applicant/plaintiff sought a decree on admission. The learned Senior Civil Judge, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the grandmother of the applicant/plaintiff had no title in the property to transfer, the suit was apparently collusive between father and son and also because the Deed of Gift was not registered, as required under section 17 of the Registration Act. On appeal, the dismissal was upheld.

4. ' Before me, Dr. Ham id Ahmad Ayaz, has urged that the property is situated in a Katchi Abadi, that the name of applicant/plaintiff's grandmother had herself been mutated in the Excise record on the basis of an oral transfer, that the dispute in the excise office was raised only by the respondent No,1, that there is no other legal heir of the donor involved in the dispute and even if there was one the decree would not have bound him and, finally, the suit could not have summarily been dismissed, even if no decree was being passed on admission. These contentions arc valid. Besides, I have examined the photostat copy of the deed of gift on the record of the learned Trial Court and found that it is a mere Declaration of Gift put to writing on the 8th of April, 1985, affirming an earlier oral gift of the 5th April, 1985 and the consequential delivery of possession. This document did not require any registration. Furthermore, I have also seen the PT-1 form pertaining to the disputed property. In such form the name, of Mst. Rehmat Bibi is entered in the column pertaining to the owner of the property. Be that as it may, even possessory title of a property, unless prohibited by law, may be transferred.

5. ' In view of the above, the impugned judgments and decrees do not appear to be based on law.

6. Such are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for being dealt with in accordance with law. Revision application stands allowed.