The legal representatives of the sole defendant in O.S. No.61 of 1981 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sanga Reddy are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

2. Plaintiffs filed the suit against the sole defendant, by name Smt. Wahed Bee, for partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of the shares in accordance with the principles of Mohammedan Law.

3. The first plaintiff and the sole defendant were the two wives of late Mahaboob Ali. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons and the fourth plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff and the sole defendant also died and their legal representatives are brought on record. Mahaboob A/i owned and possessed a house and an extent of Ac.l.14 guntas of land. The plaintiffs pleaded that the suit schedule property is matruaka, left by late Mahaboob AU and according to the principles of succession, the first plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to 7/20th share each and fourth plaintiff is entitled to 7/40th share, in all, accounting for 151l6th share. It was also pointed out that the defendant is entitled to 1/16th share.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant. She pleaded that the first plaintiff deserted late Mahaboob AU for about 40 years during his lifetime and that few months before his death, their husband orally gifted the suit schedule property, in favour of herself, the first plaintiff, in equal shares. She further contended that apart from making an oral gift, late Mahaboob AU executed a gift deed, transferring the suit schedule property in equal halves, to both the wives.

5. The trial Court agreed with the contention of the defendant and passed a preliminary decree, dated 17.12.1984, directing division of the suit schedule properties into two equal shares to be allotted to the first plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant on the other. The claim of plaintiffs 2 to 4 was rejected.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed A.S. No.7 of 1985 in the Court of the District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. The appeal was allowed on 31.7.1996, the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and in its place, a preliminary decree as prayed for, was passed. Hence, the second appeal.

7. Sri MN. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the defendant submits that there is sufficient evidence on record in support of the plea of the oral gift in favour of the defendant and the first plaintiff and that there was no justification for the lower appellate Court in upsetting the finding recorded by the trial Court. He submits that even if the document executed by Mahaboob Ali is to be ignored, the plea of oral gift stands established and there was no occasion to disturb the well-considered findings recorded by the trial Court.

8. Sri Mohd. Shafiuddin, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that the plea raised by the defendant was self-contradictory: inasmuch as in one and the same stretch, an oral gift, and a document, whose description is doubtful were pleaded. He submits that the very fact that there is no recital about the oral gift in the deed, upon which reliance was placed, discloses that the plea raised by the defendant is not acceptable. He further contends that whenever an oral gift is followed by a document, it must satisfy all the requirements of law including registration.

9. On a consideration of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed five issues, which are as under :

(1) Whether the present suit after return of plaint in O.S. No.3 of 1979 on the file of District Munsiff, Sanga Reddy is maintainable?

(2) Whether the suit schedule property is the matruka of late Mahaboob AU Khan?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of 15/16th share in suit schedule property as claimed ?

(4) Whether late Mahaboob AU gifted the houses and