Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. If not, whether the defendants got any sort of right over the suit property to oppose the suit claim of plaintiff, if so, on what basis, so also in impugning the trial Courts decree and judgment to interfere by this Court while sitting in appeal and to what extent?

6. To what result?

10. Before coming to the facts, so far as the legal position regarding the oral gift concerned:-

11. In V.Sreeramachandra Avadhani died by L.Rs. Vs. Shaik Abdul Rahaman , it was held in relation to the Hiba(gift) in Muslim law that gift be unconditional and any conditions imposed or expressed are void to say the gift is however valid but conditions only void, for gift of the corpus has to be unconditional. It is observed that transfer of corpus refers to change in ownership, whereas, the transfer of usufruct refers to change in right of use and enjoyment, else effect by donee in favour of appellant by transfer of the corpus is thereby valid.

12. In the latest expression of the Apex Court in Resheeda Khatoon Vs. Ashiq Ali , it was held referring to Section 123 and 129 of the T.P.Act and Sec.17 of the Registration Act to the donations mortis cause in Mahomedan Law claimed the gift is made orally that was later reduced to writing, same no way requires registration by referring to some of the expressions supra, particularly of Calcutta High Court in Nasib Ali Vs. Wajed Ali , of the Apex Court in Boya Ganganna Vs. State of A.P. , the Allahabad High Court in Kesam Ilahi Vs. Sharfuddin , of the Patna High Court in Bishwanadh Gosain Vs. Dulhin Lambhani and Kamarunnisa Bibi Vs.Hussaini Bibi and also the earlier expressions of the Apex Court in Mahaboob Sahab Sultan Vs. Syed Ismail and Hafeeza Bibi Vs. Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs and of the Kerala High Court in Makku Rawthers Children:Assan Ravther Vs. Manahapara Charayil , of the Guwahati High Court in Hesabuddin Vs. Md. Hesaruddin referring to earlier expression in Jubeda Khatoon Vs.Moksed Ali , and of the Privy Council in the case of Mohammad Abdul Ghani Khan vs Fakhr Jahan Begam referring to Syed Ameer Alis Mahomedan Law supra by approving the statement made therein, held the three conditions necessary for a valid gift under the Mahomedan law are (a) Manifestation of the wish to give on the part of the donor; (b) the acceptance of the donee, either impliedly or expressly ; and (c) the taking of possession of the subject-matter of the gift by the donee, either actually or constructively. If the three conditions are essentially there, the oral gift is complete and irrevocable and for that the donor may record transaction of the oral gift later by reducing in writing as an acknowledgment of prior oral gift. It is to say in case of contemporaneous transaction even registered if not satisfied the three pre-requisites does not take shape of a valid gift. Thus the three essentials of gift under Mahomedan law are declaration of the gift by the donor openly, acceptance of the gift by the donee and delivery of possession, for nothing mandates in writing to validate the same; thus every gift fulfilling the three essentials makes the gift complete and irrevocable as also stated by the author Mullah in principles of law, 19th Edition page 120, Asafaafizee in outlines of Mahomedan Law, 5th Edition(revised) at page 182 and the passage from Mullah as also quoted with approval in the previous expression of the Apex Court in Hafeeza Bi supra. The Apex Court in the recent expression in Rasheeda Khatoon supra observed further that all the three Judge Bench expressions of the Apex Court in Valia peedi Kakkandi, Katheessa, Umma and others Vs. Pathakkallar Narayanath Kunhamu died by L.Rs. observed on the question whether the gift by husband to his minor wife accepted by mother of the minor on behalf of minor as valid, referring to Hedaya(DIG)P-508 quoting from Inayaha of Prophet, a gift is not valid unless possessed, that gift referred valid on tendering acceptance and seisin. In this regard, it is observed that possession is either actual or constructive and with which unless a minor shows attained discretion to accept as donee, in the absence of showing representing by guardian to accept, even registration of document, in the absence of required acceptance, it is not a valid gift. For that conclusion also referred to the expression of the Privy Council in Sidiq Ali Khan Vs. F.J.Begum where it was held even mutation of name not necessary, but for acceptance and delivery of possession. It was concluded therefrom in Rasheeda Khatoon supra of 2014 by the Apex Court on facts that no physical possession or formal entry even necessary in the Mahomedan law for gift of immovable property, where donor and donee both residing in the premises at the time of gift; however in such a case, the gift may be completed by some overt act by donor indicating clear intention on his part to transfer and to divest himself of all control over the subject matter of the gift and its possession as defined in Section 394 of the Muslim law by the author Tyabji, that a person is said to be in possession of a thing or of immovable property, when he is so placed with reference to it that he can exercise exclusive control over it, for the purpose of deriving from it such benefit, as it is capable of rendering and/or as jointly derived from it. From the aforesaid, it is vivid that possession can be shown not only by enjoyment of the land or premises in question but also by asserting by the one who has the actual control over the property. Ultimately it was held on the facts that, plaintiff could not prove either actual or constructive possession and thereby the gift is not complete and once such is the case, the issue of registration does not arise.