1. ' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 31-7-1975 passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, upholding the action of City Survey Officer, Hyderabad, mutating houses' bearing C.S. No, 1090 to 1098 Ward 'F' in the names of the Bibi Bushra and Bibi Kaneez Bano in equal shares on the strength of gift statement given by Bibi Hasan Bano mother of the petitioner.
2. ' The counsel for the petitioner has urged the same points that he urged in the lower Courts. He contends that alleged gift statement is a forged one and has never been executed by the donor.
3. That the alleged gift deed was suddenly produced before the City Survey Officer after fortnight of the death donor who without notice to the petitioner mutated the Khata in the Record-of-Rights.
4. That the possession has not been delivered to the donees which is one of the essentials of a valid gift under provisions of Muhammadan Law. He further argued that the property was under the superintendence of Court of Wards. According to section 37 of the Court of Wards Act, it could not be transferred in any manner except with the approval Of Court of Wards. Therefore the gift made by lady donor is illegal, incomplete and invalid.
3. The counsel for the respondent contends that mutation had taken place on valid document and as such no irregularity was committed by City Survey Officer. The property was never taken by the Court of Wards as no such sanction of the Government was obtained nor any Notification to this effect was issued by the Court of Wards. The property was temporarily under the custody of the Court of Wards under section 10. Hence there was no need to obtain permission in respect of any alienation. He has relied on the concurrent findings of the lower Courts and rule 26 of the Court of Wards Rules. As regards the possession of the property he contends that the rent is being received by the Court of Wards in respect of these houses on behalf of the respondents who are under Co art of Wards and the possession is also with them.
5. ' Heard the arguments of the parties and perused the relevant record. It appears that this property was never taken under the superintendence of the Court of Wards as no notification was issued to the effect by the Government. Besides temporary taking of the property under section 10 of the Court of Wards Act without observance of formalities section 5 of the same cannot be considered as taking over property of deceased Hussan Bano under the Court of Wards Act and as such no sanction was needed for transfer of property by the donee.
6. ' As regards the. Validity of the gift it is complete as all the essential of the gift have been duly complied with. I find no justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. Consequently, the revision petition is rejected. Revision rejected.