A gift deed under Mohammedan Law is valid only if it satisfies the four necessary elements: declaration of gift by the donor, relinquishment by donor of ownership and dominion, acceptance of the gift by donee, and delivery of possession of the property by donor.

B.L.YADAV, J.

1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiffs has been preferred under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (compendiously the Code) against the decree and judgment of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Purnia, setting aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge in a title suit brought by them for declaration that gift deed dated 25-3-1972 executed by Haji Zakiruddin the original Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the defendants was a sham and collusive transaction, and it did not create any title in favour of the defendants and the plaintiffs have got title over the suit land to the extent of -/8/10 paise.

2. Shorn of details the case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the suit property having an area of 3.49 acres of land mentioned in Schedule A of the Plaint belongs to original Plaintiff No. 1 Haji Zakiruddin and was recorded in his name. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of Haji Zakiruddin. The third daughter named Bibi Aliman had pre-deceased Hazi Zakiruddin, Plaintiff No. 1. Hazi Zakiruddin and defendants are descendants of common ancestors Lapatu Mian who had two wives and through his first wife, he has two sons, namely, Late Hazi Zakiruddin and Ajmat Ali. The latter Ajmat Ali died leaving behind a son late Masraf Ali and the defendants are the sons of Masaraf Ali. Plaintiff- Hazi Zakiruddin had share only to the extent of 20 bighas of land and on wrong advice of the counsel Hazi Zakiruddin executed the collusive registered deed of gift dated 25-31972 in favour of the defendants. But later on he cancelled the registered deed of gift by executing a deed dated 25th July, 1972. In this way the defendants have no right or title, but they started threatening the plaintiff. The plaintiffs accordingly filed a suit for declaration that the said deed of gift was sham, collusive and also for declaration of title over the suit land.

3. The defendants contested the suit denying the plaintiffs allegations. It was stated that the suit as filed was not maintainable, the plaintiff had got no cause of action for the suit against the defendants, the suit was barred by the law of limitation, principles of estoppel waiver, acquiescence as well as defect of parties. The original deed of gift executed by the plaintiff on 25-3-1972 was valid and the said deed of gift was executed by Hazi Zakiruddin consulting his daughters in favour of the defendants as they were his grand-sons and they had entered possession over the lands in dispute. They had no knowledge of cancellation of the deed of gift and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial court framed the following issues :I. Is the suit as framed maintainable ?II. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action for the suit ?III. Is the suit barred by law of limitation and principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence ?IV. Is the court fee paid sufficient ?V. Whether the deed of gift executed by Hazi Zakiruddin on 25-3-1972 in favour of defendants was a sham and collusive transaction created by him to save his properties from the mischief of Bihar Ceiling Act on wrong advice of Advocate or the same is a valid and genuine transaction ?VI. Does it amount to valid revocation of the gift by the subsequent deed.VII. Have the plaintiffs subsisting title over the suit land to the extent of 10 annas 8 pies ?VIII. To what relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled ?The trial Court decreed the suit.

5. The defendants filed appeal before the District Judge, Purnia, and on being transferred, the learned Addl. District Judge 3rd, Purnia, heard and allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Against that decree the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

6. After the death of Hazi Zakiruddin, his daughters are the present appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants contended that the deed of gift dated 25-3-1972 was correctly cancelled by the subsequent deed dated 25th July, 1972, before possession could be transferred t