A declaration of gift under Mohammedan Law is not valid unless it is registered and contains all the essential elements of a valid gift, such as the acceptance of the gift by the donee and the transfer of possession of the property to the donee.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 12-2-1987 passed by the Additional Chief Judge-cum-I Additional Special Judge for spe and ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OS No. 277 of 1984 (Old OS no. 106 of 1976 ). The present appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants in the suit.

( 2 ) THE appellant s father Nasab Mir Hasan AH Khan was the owner and possessor of the suit land known as Ali Cottage at Mukaramjahi Road, hyderabad, ad-measuring 1,300 Sq. yds. Nasab Mir Hasan Ali Khan gave possession of the said cottage to the appellant on 14th Amardad 1345 fasli by an oral gift. The appellant had been in possession of the said plot of land since then asits owner. Mir Hasan Ali Khan also executed an agreement da ted 30th Meher 1347 fasli in favour of the appellant, and the appellant was in possession thereof continuously since 14th Amardad 1345 fasli corresponding to 19-6-1936. Prior to the appellant, Mir Hasan Ali Khan was in possession of the suit property as the successor of his father. The appellant raised construction thereon and carried on auction business under the name and style of ali Brothers . However, on 6-8-1971, the competent authority of A. P. Housing Board issued a notice to the appellant, which according to the appellant was illegal. It is the case of the appellant that he was in possession of the suit land since 14th amardad 1345 fasli as the owner thereof and he let out the property to tenants. The appellant caused a notice to be issued on the Chairman of the Housing board, and to the Collector, Hyderabad District on 9-10-1971, butno reply to the notice was received by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property as also for consequential injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 by his written statements denied the allegations and averments made in the plaint and contended that originally the property belonged to the Public Works Department of the erstwhile Hyderabad city. By g. O-Ms. No. 361 dated 21-2-1963, the Government transferred the buildings and vacant sites measuring Ac. 22-00 of land as per the details contained in the said GO for enabling the respondent No. 1 to construct a multistoreyed building therein. The Housing Board took possession of the said property on 1-4-1963, apublicnotice to thiseffectwaspublished in the local news papers on 9-4-1963. By the said public notice the occupants were called upon to submit applications within a week from the date of notice for securing temporary lease of the premises of the land occupied by them. Which could be granted after examining each case on merits. A caution was added to the public notice stating that the defaulting persons would be evicted if no application was made within the specified period for temporary lease or permission. The appellant thereupon issued a legal notice dated 19-5-1963 in which, according to the respondent no. 1, the appellant admitted that he was a tenant of P. W. D. in respect of the premises described in the schedule. The appellant caused a further notice dated 2-7-1963 to be issued under Section 80 C. P. C. The appellant also filed a Writ petition bearing No. 507 of 1963 alongwith 14 others in thishigh Court in which the appellant admitted the ownership of the Housing Board in respect of the suit property and claimed no right, title or interest in the houses except as tenents thereof, and also paid rent in respect of the suit property to the Housing Board in the years 1963 and 1964 in the capacity of a tenant. The appellant while admitting the arrears of rent disputed its correctness and failed and neglected to deposit the arrears of rent. The respondent No. 1 therefore terminated the tenancy of the appellant and referred the matter to the competent authority being the Tribunal constitu