An oral gift of immovable property under Mohammadan law is valid only if there is a declaration of gift, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession.

( 1 ) THIS Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional district Judge, Karimnagar in Appeal Suit no. 20 of 1978 dated 15th September, 1980. Defendants in O. S. No. 66 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Sultanabad are the appellants herein. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the district Munsif at Sultanabad for declaration of title over the suit wall and the suit chenna and for the issuance of mandatory injunction for the removal of the structure raised by the defendants on the suit wall and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching on the suit wall. The trial Court after framing the necessary issues and examining the relevant evidence, decreed the suit in the terms prayed for by the respondent. Against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was carried to the Additional District Judge, karimnagar who dismissed the appeal. This appeal is filed against the judgment of he lower appellate Court.

( 2 ) DURING the course of the trial, the appellants questioned the locus standi of the respondent/plaintiff to file the suit in question. An issue was framed in this regard by the trial Court. The contention of appellant was that there was no evidence to establish that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of the suit wall and suit Chenna and consequently, he has no locs standi to file this suit. The respondent s claims was that his father was the owner of the house including the suit wall, that the suit property was the subject-matter of an oral gift in his favour and that pursuant to this gift, he acquired title to the property including the suit wall and, therefore, he had the competency to file the suit as the owner of the suit wall inasmuch as the gift was claimed to be an oral gift by the father of the respondent plaintiff, there was no documentary evidence forthcoming. It is not in dispute that there was also no contemporaneous evidence to establish the gift. The father of the respondent/plaintiff was examined as P. W. 2. There is no reference relating to the actual date of the gift either in the plaint or in any other evidence that was placed before the Court. There is no specific mention of the date when the gift was allegedly made P. W. 2 stated in his deposition that the gift was made about six years ago (implying thereby that the gift was made sometime in 1969 ). P. W. 2 further stated that none was present at the time when he made the gift. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had let in unimpeachable evidence to show that his predecessors-in-title were the owners of the suit wall. The trial Court also noticed that when the suit wall fell down, the plaintiff s father constructed a new wall in the year 1960 pursuant to the permission taken by him from the municipality. Having referred to the above facts, the trial Court recorded the finding that the above evidence clearly showed that the suit wall belonged to the plaintiff. It may be mentioned that there was no dispute that the house belonged to the respondent/plaintiff s father. There is some dispute about the ownership of the suit wall. The appellants contended that the suit wall was part of the adjoining premises which they purchased in 1962 and that it was borne out by the plan accompanying the registered sale deed in which the suit wall was shown as part of the premises purchased by the appellants. There is, on the other hand, evidence to show that this suit wall was constructed in the year 1960 by the plaintiff s father. There is also evidence to show that when the building was gifted by the plaintiff s grand-mother, the suit wall was shown as part of the gifted premises. On this conflicting evidence, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit wall belonged to the plaintiff s father and not to the appellants. This finding however did not carry the matter any further so far as the q

Click Here to Read the rest of this document