' This order will also dispose of Civil Revision No,1651 of 1992 as in both the revision petitions a consolidated judgment passed in the two appeals filed by the respondents arising from the two suits filed by the parties against each other has been challenged.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for challenging the legality and validity of the gift of the land made by the grandfather of respondents Nos.1 to 3 in their favour. Among other issues the learned trial Court framed issue No,6 to reflect the controversies raised by the parties in their pleadings. Since Issue No,6 is the crucial issue and the decision of the suit centres around the decision on this issue the same is reproduced below:--- "Whether the gift Mutation No,619 dated 15-8-1981 and Rapit No,249 dated 11-7-1981 is against law and facts, void, illegal, forged, fictitious, collusive, based on fraud and have no effects on the rights of the plaintiff and they are liable to be cancelled? OPP.
' It is clear from the issue itself that the onus was on the petitioner to prove that the gift made by his deceased father in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3, the children of his other predeceased son was not valid, the mutation sanctioned by the Revenue officer was forged, fictitious and had been obtained through fraud.
3. The case of the petitioner was that the donor was about 80 years old at the time of making the gift, therefore, he was suffering from Marz-ul-Maut and was not in his senses, as such, the mutation of the gift was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud and was a fictitious transaction. It was rightly observed by the learned lower appellate Court that the petitioner failed to produce any medical evidence to prove that the donor was suffering from any such kind of disease from which it could be ascertained that he was suffering from Marz-ul-Maut. It was held that the donor was not suffering from any such disease which inference was justifiably raised from the fact that he lived for about seven years after the date of the sanction of mutation of gift and during his lifetime neither he nor the present petitioner raised any objection against the said mutation, the factum of gift and even the entries incorporated in the Jamabandi based on the said mutation, for, learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned frankly conceded that the entries in the Jamabandi had been made in favour of the respondents.
4. The petitioner did not produce the Patwari to whom the matter was reported for entering the mutation and the Revenue Officer who attested the mutation to prove that the donor was not in a fit statement of mind to dispose of the property with his own free will and that he could not correctly understand the transaction which he was making. The respondents are admittedly the sons of the predeceased son of the donor from his wife whereas the petitioner is his son from his another wife.
5. The learned trial Court through judgment dated 23-10-1991 the suit. The learned trial Court was mainly influenced by the fact that delivery of possession of the land in pursuance of gift and the requirement of acceptance of gift had not been established. I am afraid the reasonings given by the learned trial Court were not legally correct inasmuch as admittedly the respondents/donees were minors at the relevant time and they were minors even when the suit was filed against them by the petitioner. In such situation the grandfather/donor being the natural guardian of the property of the minors under the Muhammadan law could very well accept the gift and B delivery of possession on behalf of the minors, therefore, no such formality was required to be fulfilled. The inaction on behalf of the donor for long seven years after making the gift and his conduct of not raising any objection even against the entries incorporated in the Jamabandi in favour of the donees was sufficient to establish that he did everything what was required to complete the gift and there was no defect whatsoever in the gift itself which was complete in all respects.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the learned lower appellate Court while accepting the appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court misread, misconstrued the record or that c any piece of evidence has been kept out of consideration. The learned lower appellate Court has not committed any material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it under the law, in accepting the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since in the connected suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction they were to prove under issue No,7-C which is to the following effect:--- "Whether impugned Gift No,619 was made by Muhammad Din with his free consent, with sound mind and knowledge in accordance with law? OPD that the gift was duly made, therefore, onus was on them to prove that the grandfather made the gift and all the ingredients were completed.
8. The argument has no force because under Issue No,6 as reproduced above the petitioner failed to prove that the gift was fake and the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud, therefore, the factum of the gift in favour of the respondents stood proved. As I have observed above in the situation as it obtains in this case the donor was himself the natural guardian of the property of the donees who were minors, therefore, the formality of acceptance of gift and taking of delivery of possession were not to be separately completed as he shall be deemed to have accepted the gift and delivery of possession on their behalf which fact was proved subsequently when they entries were made in the Jamabandi in the name of the donees without any objection from the deceased donor who lived about seven years after the mutation of gift.
9. For the foregoing reasons both the revision petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed in limine.