On 8.8.1994 the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners. In the plaint, it was stated that Qadir Bakhsh the last male owner of the suit land mentioned in the plaint died on 21.4.1994. He was survived by the Petitioner No, 1 as son and the respondents being the children of Mst. Ayeshoo the pre-deceased daughter of Qadir Bakhsh. However, they came to know that the Petitioner No, 1 has, managed attestation of a gift Mutation No, 2237 on 26.9.1991 purporting to record a gift made by Qadir Bakhsh in his favour. Thereafter, he proceeded to transfer the land to Petitioners Nos, 2 to 6 who are his daugthers and the Petitioner No,
7. All these transactions were stated to be illegal and void. A joint written statement was filed by all the petitioners. It was asserted that since the Petitioner No, 1 is the son of Qadir Bakhsh he validly made a gift in his favour and got the mutation attested. Issues were framed Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismiss the suit on 24.9.1997. A first appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by learned District Judge, Lodhran, on 11.11.1998 who decreed their suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the cases Muhammad Zaman Khan vs. The Additional Chief Land Commissioner and another (1986 SCM R 1121) and Mst. Tayyaba Khanam and others v. Chairman Federal Land Commission and others (1984 SCMR 1110) urges that a valid gift was proved with reference to Roznamcha Waqati. The case of Arif Zaman vs. Pir Dost Ali Shah through Legal Heirs and others (2005 M LD 98) is being relied to urge that since the tenants were cultivating the land, delievery of possession was not necessary. No one has turned up for the respondents.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now I have already reproduced above the relevant contents of the pleadings. It was the petitioners who were pleading a valid gift in their favour. They being the beneficiaries, the burden was upon them to prove a valid gift as held in the said case of Arid' Zaman being relied upon by the, petitioners themselves. Now before I proceed further in the matter, I may humbly note here that the said case of Muhammad Zaman Khan as also Mst. Tayyaba Khanam and others were decided in the context of proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972. No challenge was being thrown to the validity of the gift by the donor or by his admitted heirs. It has been observed in the said judgments that the said law i,e, MLR 115 is confiscatory in nature. Needless to state that the resumption of the gifted land was being questioned in the said cases.
4. Now the donee i,e, Petitioner No, 1 who is stated to be alived and well did not appear when his son-in-law Naeem Akhtar appeared. He did not at all state that in what manner late Qadir Bakhsh made gift in favour of his son as to whether a declaration was made, it was accepted or that possession was delivered and received under the gift. Regarding mutation suffice it to mention that the witness stated that he was not present during the mutation proceedings. The other witness is Muhammad Azam son of Khan Muhammad DW-2. He simply stated that he was present at the time of attestation and entry of mutation and had identified Qadir Bakhsh. Nothing turns on the statement of this witness so far as the factum of actual gift within the meaning of relevant law is concerned. I may note here that this witness when confronted admitted that out of the said land, some land was gifted by the Petitioner No, 1 in favour of the brother of this witness who is Petitioner No, 7 in this case. Now the Larnbardar was produced by the Respondents as PW-2. He proceeded to state that he had identified Qadir Bakhsh and had asked him and he told him that he will be giving some land to the petitioners and some to his, son and this is what he stated before the Tehsildar.
5. I have also examined the Roznamcha, copy whereof is Ex. P.13. It narrates that Qadir Bakhsh appeared alongwith Muhammad Azam and Khadim.Hussain and had stated that he had gifted away the land to his son Ataullah and had delivered possession.
6. Now I may note here that the point involved in the said case of Muhammad Zaman Khan was as to whether at what point of it the gift was completed. It was the donor himself who was the appellant before their Lordships and stated that he had gifted the land to his minor sons. The gift was reported to the Patwari on 23.2.1970 but the mutation was sanctioned on 6.8.1973. The land was resumed on the ground that the mutation entered on the basis of the Roznamcha had been rejected earlier. Later the minor donee filed suits against their father (appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court) and these were decreed and thereafter mutations were sanctioned. It was in this context that their Lordships observed that the gift was complete before the day the report was made and noted in the Roznamcha Waqati.
7. In the present case, the donor is dead and buried and his daughters are challenging the, gift. His son who has positively asserted that a valid gift was made in his favour has not put in appearance and there is no evidence of a valid gift having been made by the deceased in favour of Petitioner No, 1 on record. No grounds stands made out for interference in the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Lordhran. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.