The main legal point established in the judgment is that to prove a valid gift under Mahomedan Law, the donor must satisfy the requirements of a valid gift, including a declaration of the gift, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession. The judgment emphasizes the importance of presenting complete and convincing evidence to support claims of fraud or undue influence.

JUDGMENT

1. By this Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the appellant-plaintiff has impugned the judgment and order dated 11th November, 2008 passed by learned District Judge-1, Wardha thereby dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2004 filed by appellant-plaintiff. By dismissing the said Appeal the learned first Appellate Court has affirmed and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1997 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti on 21st August, 2004 whereby the Suit of appellant- plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The parties in the judgment are described as per their original status in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge.

3. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Appeal are as under:

(i) The plaintiff is owner and possessor of a house property situated in mouza Ramdara within the area of Grampanchayat Talegaon (S.P.) bearing house demand No. 143 (Old No. 726) ('suit house' for short). The defendant No.1 i.e. respondent is step sister of the plaintiff while defendant No.2 was father. The defendant No.1 was originally residing at village Bhishnur and came to reside at village Talegaon 10 years ago. The defendant No.2 bequeathed the land to defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has constructed a cement concrete house on the said plot.

(ii) The defendant No.2-father allotted the suit house to the plaintiff by oral gift in a partition and thereafter also applied to the grampanchayat so as to have that suit house mutated in the name of plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is paying grampanchayat assessment and the suit house is in his occupation since its allotment.

(iii) In view of above, the defendant No.2 had no right to bequeath the suit house in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleges that at the relevant time defendant-father was suffering from mental ill-health because of old age and had no control over his activities, speech and version. By taking dis-advantage of mental condition of defendant-father, the defendant No.1 got executed from him a gift deed in respect of suit house vide registration No. 1953 on 9th December, 1996. The plaintiff came to know this fact when defendant No.1 applied for mutation of the suit house in her name. The document of gift deed having been obtained fraudulently and by exercising undue influence over the defendant-father is void and illegal and therefore, does not pass any title in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction.

4. The defendants by filing joint written statement (Exh.32) resisted the Suit and denied that plaintiff owned and possessed the suit house. They further denied that defendant No.1 by taking dis-advantage of mental condition of defendant No.2 got executed gift deed from defendant No.2 in respect of suit house in her favour. They further denied that the defendant No.2 allotted the suit house to the plaintiff by oral gift in a partition and further applied to the grampanchayat so that the suit house can be mutated in the name of the plaintiff.

5. According to defendants, the suit house being self acquired property of defendant No.2, he had every right to dispose of as per his will and accordingly, defendant No.2 gifted the suit house to defendant No.1 by registered gift deed dated 9th December, 1996 and thus, defendant No.1 has become the owner and occupier of the suit house and the same has been recorded in the record of right of the Government. According to them, defendant No.2 was mentally sound and fit at the time of the execution of the gift deed dated 9th December, 1996 and no undue influence was used against him. Since the suit has been filed only to harass the defendants, the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs, pleaded defendants.

6. Learned trial Judge on the basis of pleadings of both the parties framed six issues and after considering oral and documentary evidence laid by parties dismissed the Suit vide order dated 21st