' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.-Brief facts of the case are that respondents filed a declaratory suit against the present petitioners challenging registered gift deed dated 28-6-1983 by way of which the land detailed in the plaint was allegedly gifted in favour of the present petitioners by the respondents/plaintiffs. Petitioners contested the suit and pleaded that the property in dispute was gifted by the respondents out of love and affection. Mst. Karam Bibi respondent being father's sister of the petitioner and Shafi being son of another sister of petitioners' father. After recording evidence of the parties the learned trial Court vide, judgment and decree dated 27-11-1995 dismissed the suit. The same was assailed by the respondents through an appeal which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 25-4-1997 and the suit was decreed. The same was challenged by the petitioners through a revision before this Court through Civil Revision No. 698 of 1997 which was allowed vide order dated 10-11-2004 and the case was remanded to the learned appellate Court for re-decision. After remand the learned appellate Court again allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 25-1-2005 maintaining the decree in favour of the respondents, the same is being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that document Exh.D/1 stands duly proved. It is further argued that all necessary ingredients of gift can be found in the written statement and the evidence if it is read as a whole, therefore, finding of the learned appellate Court that petitioners failed to plead and prove necessary ingredients of gift is contrary to record and is based on misreading of the entire material.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the disputed gift deed was registered on 28-6-1983, while the insfant suit was filed within 20 days by the donors themselves on 18-7-1983. Mst. Karam Bibi has four sons and three daughters and there was no reason for her to deprive her entire family. Likewise Shafi respondent is also having children. It is also submitted that the very, fact of gift was neither pleaded nor proved by the petitioners, therefore, the judgment of the learned appellate Court does not deserve interference by this Court.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Registration of a deed of gift or attestation of a mutation of gift is an event which takes place after the parties had already settled the transaction at some prior point of time, at some place in the presence of some witnesses and after having completed that transaction of gift they proceed to reduce it into writing in the shape of a mutation or a registered deed. A valid gift does not require registration, attestation of a mutation or bringing it into writing by the parties even without registration. The only requirement of a valid gift is to establish offer by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession. In the instant case petitioners had failed to plead the fact of gift which must have actually taken place if it was a true gift prior to the registration of the document. There is also no evidence to that effect. Although it could not be led without pleading but still there is nothing on. Record to show that any gift had taken place prior to the registration of the deed. Petitioners being the beneficiaries of the transaction were under heavy burden to plead and prove a. Valid gift in accordance with law. There is nothing on record with regard to the fact of gift, therefore, findings of the learned appellate Court do not deserve any interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.