' The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents seeking a declaration that she is exclusive owner of the suit land measuring 146 Kanals, 1 Marla. It was stated in the plaint that the land was owned by her late husband Syed Habibullah Shah who gifted away the same in her favour vide mutation No,1007 attested on 23-1-1954; that the said Syed Habibullah Shah died in April, 1968 and the respondents got the mutation of inheritance attested in their favour in respect of the suit land.
This led to litigation in the Revenue hierarchy which ultimately culminated into order, dated 26-5- 1971 of Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who allowed the revision petition of the respondents and declared the petitioner to be a holder of life interest. This order of the Additional Commissioner is stated to be illegal and void. A written statement was filed wherein the factum of the mutation having been attested in favour of the petitioner at the behest of her husband was admitted but it was stated that it was only the life estate and meant for maintenance of the petitioner. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 9-9-1975.
An appeal filed by the petitioners was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Multan who dismissed the same on 29-1-1983.
2. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Jahania, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned lower Courts have misread the mutation No,1007, dated 23-1-1954 and have acted in violation of the law declared by the superior judic:. Ry to the effect that under the Islamic Law the condition attached to an otherwise valid gift is void. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice for today.
3. I have examined a copy of mutation No,1007, attested on 23-1-1954 which was produced as Exh.D.1. I find that report No,155 was entered in Roznamcha Waqiati on 1-1-1954 and the mutation was entered with reference to the said report in the following words:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' After completing the verification process the mutation was put up before the Revenue Officer on 23-1-1954. Following order was recorded:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. At a quick glance one might get the impression that the land was transferred for maintenance but a careful reading of the said proceedings and statements made by Syed Habibullah Shah would show that he meant that the land be transferred in title to his wife. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the case of Abdul Hamid and 23 others v. Muhammad Mohiyuddin Siddique Raja and 3 others (PLD 1997 SC 730). In the said case a transfer made by a husband to his wife in the following words came up before the Supreme Court:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The controversy was as to whether the saidtransaction is a gift of the corpus {{URDU TEXT}} or gift of usufruct "Ariyat". Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan after recapitulating the case-law on the subject, the Ahadis of the Holy Prophet and some reknowned works of Fiqah observed as follows: ' The statement made by the Jamal Din before Patwari and Revenue Officer, the order attesting the mutation as well as the contents of the plaint--clearly show that it was the 'land itself', the corpus of land which Jamal Din gifted in favour of his wife Mst. Karam Noor though he added the condition " " till life therewith and not the mere enjoyment of usufruct thereof."
' The first statement made before the Patwari indicated that Jamal Din transferred the disputed land for life in favour of his wife and to give effect to the disposition as aforesaid he had delivered possession of the land to her. The transaction of gift so reported to the Patwari constituted complete gift of the land made by husband in favour of the wife. Disposition of land in question amounted to 'Umra' recognized as one of species of gift of property under Muslim Law. His Lordship also made reference to the following Ihadis quoted in Sahih Muslim:-- "3972.Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: whoever a person is gifted a life grant, then it is for him (belongs to him and to him posterity), for it belongs to him who has been given it. It would not return to him who gave it for he conferred it as a gift (it becomes the property of the donee and as such) rules of inheritance will apply to it.
3973. Jabir b. 'Allah (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who conferred a life grant upon person, it becomes his possession and that of his successors, for he surrendered his right in that by his declaration. (This property) now belongs to one to whom this lifelong grant has been made, and to his successors. Yahya narrated in the beginning of his narration: Whatever man is given a life grant, then it belongs to him and his posterity.
3977. Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Life grant is for one upon whom it is bestowed.
5. The transaction in question examined in the light of said case of Abdul Hamid is for all purposes a{{URDU TEXT}}. Possession was delivered under the gift by Syed Habibullah Shah to Mst. Bhirawan Bibi as he reported to the Patwari. The overall effect of the statement made before the Revenue Officer is that the land stands transferred to the said lady and possession stands delivered under the gift. This was a complete gift and Syed Habibullah Shah assured the Revenue Officer that Mst.
Bhirawan Bibi has accepted the gift. Thus, a complete gift in all respects came into existence and took effect as such. The condition of the term {{URDU TEXT}} or {{URDU TEXT}} would be void and cannot take effect while the gift has and shall take effect.
6. As a result of the above discussion findings of the Court below on issue No,4 are reversed. The result is that the Civil Revision is allowed. Judgments and decrees of both the learned lower Courts are set aside and the suit of Mst. Bhirawan Bibi (represented by the petitioners) stands decreed.
The parties to bear their own costs.