' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- One Feroze Khan son of Sardar Khan was allegedly owner of 21 Kanals 13 Marlas in Chak No,283/JB, Tehsil Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh. On the basis of registered deed attested on 24-5-1989, he gifted away his property in favour of his wife Mst.
Maqsooda Begum. Mutation No,337 was also entered and attested on 15-6-1991 on the strength of the aforesaid registered deed. Feroze Khan died on 5-5-1991 while Mst. Maqsooda also died on 3- 64991.
2. The donor Feroze Khan had a nephew named Riaz Ullah Khanwho, on 23-1-1992 filed a suit against the legal heirs of the donee challenging the validity of gift as well as the mutation and claimed Shari share in the property of his uncle Feroze Khan. All the three Courts below dismissed his claim, last one on 6-5-2002 by the Honourable Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,2216 of 1996 and hence his petition for leave to appeal.
3. It is a proved fact that the donor had got the gift registered vide deed, dated 24-5-1989. This being the main transaction, subsequent entry of attestation of Mutation No,337 on 15-6-1991 was a mere formality for A the incorporation of registered deed in the Revenue Record. The challenge was brought on grounds of fraud but neither the details of fraud had been mentioned in the plaint which was necessary nor any ingredients thereof were proved at trial. On the other hand, the respondents produced Naseer-ud-Din, the scribe of the registered deed and two marginal witnesses thereof, namely, Mahmood-ul-Hassan and Ahmad Ghani. All the three have completely proved the gift transaction and hence the validity thereof was rightly determined by the three Courts below.
4. The only objection that the learned counsel raised before us was that at the time of gift no possession was delivered to the wife and hence the necessary ingredient of gift was missing. Such argument is not at all available to the petitioner because in case of gift to a wife or to a ward, the delivery of possession is immaterial. On such grounds the argument is repelled.
5. Though this Court is not bound to go into the question of fact because the three Courts below had concurrently determined the same in C favour of the respondents yet the exercise is done in the interest of justice. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.