Law: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959

Section: 15,7,4(2)

West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, paras. 15, 7 & 4(2)-Oral gift of land allegedly made in 1956-No mutation entered nor registration of memorandum taking place-Donor continuing in possession-Validation of gift, held, rightly refused.   ORDER   This appeal has been filed against an order, dated the 27th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whereby he refused to validate gifts alleged to have been made by the appellant in favour of his wife and three daughters.   The facts of the case are that the appellant is stated to have made the gifts mentioned above in 1956. On the 22nd March 1956, he bought a stamp paper and on 16th April 1956, he wrote what he termed as a Memorandum about an oral gift. No mutation was entered and no registration took place. After the imposition of the Martial Law, the appellant moved for the validation of the gift mentioned above. Enquiries were made but the. Deputy Land Commissioner did not recommend validation. The Land Commissioner agreed with the recommendations of the Deputy Land Commissioner and refused validation. Hence this appeal.   I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at great length. Actually, it is an oral gift and the Memorandum has been put up as an evidence of the oral gift. The learned counsel for the appellant wished that I should send for the register of the stamp vendor. I did not think it necessary for the simple reason that the register would only show that a stamp paper was purchased on 22nd March 1956. It would perhaps also show the purpose for which the document was being purchased. This would not really be of any help to the appellant as, in this case, the main question is whether this document should be accepted as a piece of evidence in respect of the oral gifts alleged to have been made by the appellant. It is conceded that, so far as revenue records are concerned, the possession still continues to be that of the donor. It was conceded before me that, as a matter of fact, the possession is still with the donor. It has, however, been argued that this possession is on behalf of the donees, the minor daughters and the wife. I, however, find that…