This matter originated from a challenge to a gift mutation (No. 740 dated 15.12.1990) allegedly executed by one Abdul Haq in favor of his nephews (the petitioners). The respondent, being the son of the deceased donor, challenged the transaction on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. While the Trial and Appellate Courts dismissed the suit, the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the concurrent findings and invalidated the gift. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal, held that the petitioners failed to prove the essential ingredients of a valid gift, including the specific time, date, venue, and presence of witnesses at the time of the oral transaction. The Court observed that a mutation does not carry a presumption of correctness when challenged and is merely a manifestation of an underlying transaction. Furthermore, it was noted as unnatural for a donor to deprive his own children in favor of nephews without compelling evidence. The Court affirmed that the beneficiary of a gift bears the heavy burden of proving its validity through positive and unequivocal evidence.
' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioners claim to be the donees of the suit property, which according to them was gifted by Abdul Haq, their uncle, and a gift mutation to .That effect bearing No,740 dated 15.12.1990 was attested. Respondent No,1 (respondent), the son of Abdul Haq, after the demise of the alleged donor challenged the gift on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation which was contested by the petitioners and the learned Trial Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence dismissed the same. The appeal filed by the respondent also could not succeed, however, in the revisional jurisdiction invoked by him the learned High Court set aside the concurrent decrees and has dismissed the suit. It is submitted that the revisional judgment is founded upon misreading and non-reading of the evidence. The concurrent findings of the courts below could not be upset only for the reason that on reappraisal of evidence a different conclusion could be drawn by the learned High Court.
2. Heard. We find that the instant case is founded upon misreading and non-reading of the evidence on the record which lapses have been cured by the learned High Court. In this context, it may be mentioned the relationship inter se the alleged donor and the petitioners is of uncle and nephew(s). The consideration for the gift as alleged by the respondent, that he has been looking after the alleged donor has not been proved on the record. It seems unnatural that a person could deprive his own children and dole out the property to others, may be nephews. The alleged donor had his own children; besides the mutation of transfer of immovable property is only a manifestation of the oral transaction and it does not carry any presumption of correctness, particularly in the circumstances when it has been assailed by the person affected by the same. In the instant case, the petitioners assert that a gift had been made by Abdul Haq deceased in their favour and subsequently the mutation was attested, but in the entire evidence led by them they have not been able to prove through positive evidence the day, venue, the persons in whose presence the alleged gift was made, the time thereof, the month and year and even the consideration. Simpliciter that a tehsildar who sanctioned the mutation appeared and deposed that the mutation was validly attested by itself would not serve the purpose of the petitioners who as the beneficiaries thereof had to prove the gift in unequivocal terms, particularly considering the fact that the revenue officer never stated that he knew Abdul Haq personally and that the gift for valid consideration was made in his presence; besides there are quite a few lapses committed by the revenue authorities in connection with the alleged sanction of the mutation, as has been highlighted in the impugned judgment which has made the mutation dubious and much credence cannot be given to his statement.
2. In light thereof, the learned revisional court has appropriately interfered in the matter and passed the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference. Dismissed accordingly.