Law:

Section:

Mutation------   ----(Gift)-Donor (female) accompanied by her brother, and son of donee, together with a Member of Union Council who identified her, as borne out by record-Mutation sanctioned -Subseguently donor saying that she never appeared before Revenue Officer and member, Union Council, denying he had identified donor-Held, Revenue Officer should be presumed to have known Member, Union Council and that there was no reason why Revenue Officer should have made a wrong entry-Second Revision dismissed-[P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 35 and P L D, 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 101 ref.]. ORDER   This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 5th of September 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted and the case was remanded.   The facts of the case are that at the instance of the respondent, mutation No. 235 was entered by the Patwari, in respect of the alleged gift to have been made by her in favour of her sister Mst. Ata Elahi. Malik Allah Bakhsh, a Member of the Union Council identified Mst. Karam Ilahi who was accompanied by Haq Nawaz a son of the donee.   On 15-1-1963 Mst. Karam Elahi accompanied by Haq Nawaz, son of the donee, appeared before the Revenue Officer and was identified by Malik Allah Bakhsh, Member of the Union Council. The donor admitted having made a gift and having handed over possession to the donee. The. Revenue Officer ordered that the Girdawar should compare the entry and put up the case later on. Subsequently on 29-1-1963, the Assistant Collector sanctioned the mutation. Mst. Karam Ilahi subsequently went in appeal to the Collector alleging that she never appeared before the Assistant Collector. The appeal was rejected. She then went in revision to the Additional Commissioner, who remanded the case. Hence this second revision.   I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is on record that the Patwari entered the mutation at the instance of Mst.…