1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.--- One Allah Bachayo owned about 55 acres of agricultural lands in Dehs Sorhadi and Dembiyari, Taluka Matli. He died in the year, 1968 leaving behind one son Muhammad Hashim and four daughters as his heirs. The applicants of this revision application are sons and daughters of Muhammad Hashim whereas the respondents are successors-in-interest of the foar sisters of Muhammad Hashim.
2. ' The case of the applicants in the suit from which the present proceedings have arisen was that in the year, 1965 their grand father Allah Bachayo gifted his 55 acres of agricultural lands to their father Muhammad Hashim and therefore their four aunts i.e. Sisters of their father cannot claim any share in the said lands in their capacity as heirs of their grand father Allah Bachayo.
3. ' It is an admitted position that Muhammad Hashim, the father of the applicants, who claims that the suit property was gifted to him in the year, 1965 until his father's death in 1968 neither got the gifted lands mutated in his name in the revenue records nor his sisters were told about the factum of the gift. It was only when the four sisters got their respective shares of inheritance mutated in the revenue records that Muhammad Hashim came up with his claim that the disputed lands stand gifted to him by his father in 1965. He then challenged the mutation entries in favour of his four sisters before the Revenue Authorities. Taking into consideration the plea of Muhammad Hashim that the disputed property stands gifted to him, the Revenue Authorities ordered that let a "Jalsa- e-Am" be held to ascertain the genuineness of Muhammad Hashim's claim. On 11-5-1985 a "Jalsa- e-Aam" was held and after taking into consideration the respective pleas of all the heirs of the deceased Allah Bachayo mutation entries made in the revenue record in favour of the four daughters in their capacity as heirs of Allah Bachayo were ordered to remain intact. By then Muhammad Hashim had died. Therefore aggrieved by the decision of the Revenue Authorities, his sons and daughters i.e. The applicants filed suit in September, 1985, seeking declaration that the disputed lands were gifted by his grand father in favour of his father and their four paternal aunts cannot claim any right of inheritance therein.
4. ' In the evidence, only one attesting witness of the alleged gift deed i.e. Applicant No.1 was examined, who is also one of the sons of the Donee. The other attesting witness was said to have expired. One more witness Abdul Sattar was also examined on behalf of the applicants but he was not an attesting witness nor he appeared before the Revenue Authorities in 1985 when "Jalsa-e- Aam" held by the revenue authorities. If Abdul Sattar was a witness to making of the gift by Allah Bachayo then he having no personal interest in the gifted property ought to have been made an attesting witness to the gift deed instead of the son of the Donee who can be termed as an interested person. In addition to this, the alleged gift deed was also not notarized or attested before a Magistrate. Now, this was a case where a father is said to have gifted his lands in favour of his son to the exclusion of his four daughters. In such a situation, it was of utmost importance that the factum of gift should have been announced in an open manner and thereafter all necessary steps should have been taken to give effect to the gift such as handing over of possession of the disputed lands to the Donee and affecting mutation in the name of the Donee in the revenue records. This was necessary when gift is being made in favour of one of the children of the donor to the exclusion of others.
5. ' There is another aspect of the alleged gift. Applicant No.1 who is also son of the Donee and an attesting witness in his cross-examination has stated that at the time of making the gift his grand father Allah Bachayo took an undertaking from his father Muhammad Hashim that he shall not disclose the factum of the gift to any one as long as he i.e. Allah Bachayo is alive. Thus in this manner the gift was kept secret. Secret from the four daughters of the donor as well.
6. ' Only such gifts, which are made in absolute terms without any conditions attached to it, can be considered to be lawful and valid. By keeping the factum of alleged gift secret leads to a presumption that the donor until his death retained possession of the gifted property with himself and enjoyed its usufruct to the exclusion of the donee. It would also lead to the presumption that the donor continued to claim ownership to the gifted property after making the gift and until his death. Thus to all concerned i.e. Daughters of the donor and other family members and friends, the ownership of the disputed lands continued to vest in the donor. A conditional gift or the gift intended to be acted upon after the death of the donor being bereft of the basic ingredients, which constitute a valid gift, cannot be termed as lawful.
7. ' Keeping the gift secret from the world also shows that no open declaration of gift was made.
8. Hence the gift in question also lacked basic ingredients of a valid gift i.e. Open declaration that the property is being gifted and its possession is also being handed over to the done. By making a declaration of gift and handing over possession in an open and unconditional manner, the gift is in fact acted upon thereby announcing to the whole world that the property has been gifted.
9. Therefore, the gift deed apart from being declared as fabricated and unproven document as was held by both the Courts below is also liable to be declared as invalid being devoid of the basic ingredients which constitute a valid gift.
10. ' In view of the above discussion, coupled with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the alleged gift is defective and invalid. I, therefore, find no legal justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Accordingly, this Revision Application is dismissed.