2020 S C M R 214
Gift mutation in favour of minor.
The donee who was admittedly a minor at the time of attestation of mutation in his favour by his father/donor was was not required to independently prove the offer, acceptance and delivery of possession.
Evidence on record showed that donee was about six years of age at the time of attestation of impugned mutation---Question was as to what fraud could be expected from the said donee/child with the connivance of the revenue officials---Nothing on record was available to suggest as to why the revenue officials (i.e. the Lambardar and the Pattaydar, etc.) as well as the witnesses of impugned mutation were party to the fraud, who identified the donor at the time of attestation of mutation---Present case was of an exceptional nature, since the donee was not required to independently prove the offer, acceptance and delivery of possession when he was admittedly a minor at the time of attestation of mutation in his favour by his father/donor---Donee and his legal heirs (i.e. the defendants) fully proved the valid attestation of mutation by producing voluminous oral evidence, including the record keeper and the revenue officials, who entered the mutation and attested the mutation---Attesting witnesses of the mutation and the patwari, who entered the mutation, also appeared (as witnesses)---Gift mutation was held to be valid.
Civil Appeal No. 146-L of 2018
SIKANDAR HAYAT and another Versus SUGHRAN BIBI and 6 others-
2020 S C M R 214
Cross-examination---Presumption---Material portion of a statement of a witness if not cross-examined, it was presumed that the other party had accepted such part/ portion of statement.
Civil Appeal No. 146-L of 2018
SIKANDAR HAYAT and another Versus SUGHRAN BIBI and 6 others-
2020 S C M R 214
Suit for declaration challenging a mutation---Allegation of connivance by revenue officials---Necessary party---Scope---When it was pleaded in a suit that with the connivance of the revenue officials any mutation was got attested and the same was challenged through a civil suit, the Provincial Government as well as the revenue officials against whom the connivance for attestation of the mutation was alleged, were necessary parties in the suit---When plaintiff alleged connivance of the said officials of Revenue Department with the defendants of the suit for getting a mutation attested, then without participation of the said officials, no valid adjudication could be carried out against them and no finding (of connivance) could be recorded against them in their absence.
Civil Appeal No. 146-L of 2018
SIKANDAR HAYAT and another Versus SUGHRAN BIBI and 6 others-
2020 S C M R 214
0 Comments