' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The suit property in this case was owned by one Naimat Ali son of Hayat Muhammad, who was the husband of Mst. Jamila Bibi, (petitioner No,1 now presented by her L.Rs,). Naimat Ali died issueless and was survived by the aforesaid widow and two sisters, namely, Naimat Bibi deceased (respondent No,1 now represented by her L.Rs,) and Mst. Makhtoola Bibi deceased (respondent No,5, now represented by her L.Rs,). The two sisters filed a suit seeking declaration that they were entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit property. They also challenged the registered gift deed, dated 16-8-1984 which was made by the deceased Naimat Ali in favour of his wife Mst. Jamila Bibi and Muhammad Ilyas petitioner No,2, who was the nephew (Bhatija) of Mst.
Jamila. It was the case of the respondents-plaintiffs that possession had never been delivered to the aforesaid donees and, therefore, the alleged gift was not valid even if the gift deed was held to have been executed by Naimat Ali.
2. The suit was resisted by the petitioners-defendants who claimed that the gift had been validly made in their favour. Based on the pleadings the learned trial Court framed a number of issues.
However, Issues Nos. 6 and 8-B are dispositive of the present case. These issues were framed in the following terms:-- "(6) Whether the gift deed is illegal, null and void, based upon fraud and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP"
("8-b) Whether the possession of the property of impugned gift deed has remained with Naimat Ali deceased during his life time, if so, its effect? OPP"
3. After considering the evidence the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 27-9-2001. An appeal was preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, and, as a result, the suit was decreed on 16-3-2002. It is this decree which has been challenged by the petitioners-defendants.
4. Vide admitting order, dated 27-3-2002, the appellate decree has been affirmed in part. The revision petition was dismissed as far as the right asserted by Muhammad Ilyas petitioner is concerned. The appellate decree has also been affirmed to the extent of a house in which the respondents-plaintiffs asserted a right as legal heirs of Naimat Ali.
5. This revision petition was accordingly admitted only to consider if a valid gift stood established in favour of Mst. Jamila Bibi, widow of the deceased, based on the gift deed, dated 16-8-1984. The main reason which has prevailed with the learned appellate Court for holding against Mst. Jamila Bibi is that possession under the gift deed was not delivered to her. Learned counsel for Jamila argued rightly that the petitioner being the wife of the donor, it was not necessary for Naimat A Ali to make physical delivery of the gifted property to her. This contention is well founded and is also supported by the law enunciated in the case titled Mst. Sheedan and 2 others v. Abdul Ghafoor and 6 others (2001 CLC 807).
6. Another reason which has weighed with the learned appellate Court for holding the gift to be invalid is that no gift mutation based on the gift deed was entered in the revenue record. I am afraid this premise is wholly untenable. A mutation is merely a record of a transaction concluded earlier in time. The actual conveyance by way of gift was made through the gift deed. There was no necessity in law for a mutation to be recorded.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the learned appellate Court fell in error by holding that the gift made by Naimat Ali in favour of Mst. Jamila Bibi petitioner through gift deed, dated 16-8- 1984 was invalid. The appellate decree to this extent only is set aside and it is held that the gift made by Naimat Ali in favour of his wife Mst. Jamila Bibi was validly made. In other respects the appellate decree is maintained.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion this revision 'petition is partially allowed and the impugned appellate decree is modified in terms recorded in the preceding paragraph. There shall be no order as to costs.