-Suit for declaration and injunction---Oral Gift ---Proof---Suit was filed by respondent/ plaintiff assailed mutation of Gift made in favour of petitioners/ defendants on the plea of fraud--

 2022 CLC 433

Ss.2 & 54---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42---Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R.34---Suit for declaration and injunction---Oral Gift ---Proof---Suit was filed by respondent/ plaintiff assailed mutation of Gift made in favour of petitioners/ defendants on the plea of fraud---Trial Court dismissed the suit filed but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same against petitioners/ defendants---Validity---Roznamcha Waqiati was the first document wherein fact of acquiring any right and ownership in immovable property through any mode, including of Gift , was ought to be recorded as per statutory command of S.42 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 and R.34 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968---If any person had acquired ownership through Gift in land of an estate, then that person was required to prove that his / her claim was duly brought before Patwari to be recorded in Roznamcha for subsequent entry of mutation and sanctioning thereof and then its ultimate incorporation in Periodical Records of such estate, failure would jeopardize his/ her claim and would make it non est---Petitioners/ defendants did not plead with particulars relating to performance of Gift in their written statement which was sine qua non and silence of record about performance of three essential ingredients of Gift besides omission of its date, time and place, had made the transaction non est---Missing of all such essential ingredients from written statement along with date, time and place of performance was enough to annul transaction/ mutation---No party to lis could be allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings nor could it be read in evidence---No such evidence was produced by petitioners/ defendants to prove that essential ingredients for a valid Gift were performed/ fulfilled---High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as neither any illegality nor irregularity was committed even findings were also not perverse and were recorded in conformity with law as well as evidence available on record