Unregistered gift deeds under Mohammedan law do not require registration to be valid, affirming that both oral and written gifts are effective without registration.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2012 passed in R.A. No.65 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chickballapur, sitting at Gowribidanur and the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2009 passed in O.S. No.479 of 1994 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gowribidanur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff’s mother-Smt.Khyrunbi and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff's mother executed a Hiba (gift) in favour of the plaintiff on 06.11.1986 and the plaintiff accepted the gift and the mother of the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property based on the said Hiba. The defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's mother passed away on 08.12.1987 leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole legal heir. The defendant attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

5. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the mother of the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property for valuable consideration and received Rs.2,000/- from the defendant and executed a sale agreement on 11.02.1987.

6. The defendant paid the entire sale consideration amount to the mother of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant on 22.04.1987 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property.

7. The plaintiff is having the knowledge regarding the execution of the sale agreement and the registered sale deed by her mother in favour of the defendant. It is denied that her mother had gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and it is contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit by suppressing the material facts. It is also contended that the plaintiff is also a signatory to the agreement of sale. Thus, the action of the plaintiff is hit by doctrine of estoppel. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.

8. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues:

Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has become absolute owner and is in lawful possession of suit house vide gift made by her mother as claimed ?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is trying to dispossess without right, title to suit property in any manner?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4. whether the defendant proves that the property is sold to defendant for valuable consideration on 5.12.92 and that plaintiff is a tresspasser in the property since then ?

5. What order or decree ?

Addl. Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether the suit is barred by time?

3. Whether court fee paid is in-sufficient?

4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this su