' AJMAL MIAN, J.-The petitioners have impugned the order, dated 6-8-1976 passed by respondent No, 1, declaring two gifts made by petitioner No, 1 in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 son and daughter, respectively as invalid on the ground that the possession of the land was not handed over to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, who were minors at the relevant time. Respondent No, 1 has also declared the sale transaction as invalid on the ground of inadequacy of consideration.
2. In support of the above petitions Mr. Husain Adil Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged as follows :-
(i) that in order to complete a gift in favour of minor children by a Muslim, it is not necessary that the physical possession of the land should be handed over to the minor or somebody on their behalf or same should be accepted.
(ii) that the in adequacy of consideration cannot be a sole ground of declaring a sale transaction of which bona fide was not otherwise disputed.
3. In support of the first contention he has relied upon the case of Pir Shah Mardan Shah and 3 others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Sind and 2 others (1), in which a Division Bench of this Court has held that a gift in favour of a minor will be valid notwithstanding the possession was not given and that the gift was not accepted by the minor.
4. As regards the above second contention, Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri has referred the ease of Abdul Hamid Khan v. O. S. D. Federal Land Commission and 3 others (2), in which it was held by Zaffar Husain Mirza, J. (as he then was) that inadequacy of consideration itself is not sufficient to B declare the sale transaction as invalid if otherwise there is no attending fact to reflect adversely on the bona fide of such transaction. This case has been followed inter alia in the case of Sano and 5 others v. O. S. D. Federal Land Commission (3). It may also be mentioned that the above case is also of a D. B. But is wrongly printed in the C. L. C. As S. B. Case. We, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned order as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents are restrained from acting upon the same.
' In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
(1) PLD 1974 Kar. 375 (2) 1979 CLC 211
(3) 1981 CLC 1308