An unregistered deed of gift cannot be relied upon to establish interest in immovable property, and the registration of a sale deed in a district other than where the property is situated is not valid.

R.M.Prasad, J.

1. This revision application is directed against, the order dated 18.9.92 passed in Title Execution case No. 11/855 filed by the decree holders Ramni Mohan Das and Rani Devi whereby and whereunder the petitioner Madhurani Singh has been substituted at the place of decree holders Ramni Mohan Das, Logan Chandra Das, Smt. Nunumani Devi, Smt. Veena Devi and Sri Anant Prasad Das for their 6-1/4 decimals share in the decree and the O.P. No. 1 Subhas Chandra Ghosh has been substituted at the place of decree holder Shankar Prasad Das and Smt. Rani Devi for their 8-3/4 decimals share in the decree. The Court below ordered that the instant decree be executed accordingly with convenience of Subhash Chandra Ghosh to select the side of the house according to his choice and convenience after which 6-1/4 decimals of petitioner be delivered in her possession.

2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that opposite second party obtained a decree against one Roop Narayan Ghosh father of O.P. No. 1 in T.A. No. 9/71. The decree jointly passed in favour of both the decree holders was for recovery of possession of 15 decimals of land in mouza Bogaria in the district of Banks. On 12.10.87 Rani Devi (decree holder) executed sale deed in respect of her interest in the suit land in favour of O.P. No. 1 (son of the judgment debtor) which was registered at Araria. The petitioner claims that on 11.11.87 both Ramni Mohan and Rani Devi executed a registered sale deed transferring the suit land to her. Having executed the sale deed both Ramni Mohan and Rani Devi ceased to take any step in the execution case. Petitioner applied for substitution in the execution case for execution of the entire decree. Subsequently O.P. No. 1 also filed a similar application claiming substitution in place of Rani Devi for execution of the decree in respect of the share of Rani Devi. O.P. No. 1 also raised objection with respect to the Claire of the petitioner for execution of the entire decree in her favour. The petitioner also questioned status of O.P. No. 1 as representative of the decree holder. By the impugned order the Court allowed partial execution in favour of both as already mentioned above.

3. It has been contended by Mr. Chatterji, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the land in question is situated in Mouza Bogaria in the district of Banka, but the alleged sale deed with respect to it in favour of O.P. No. 1 was fraudulently registered at Araria by including a bit of property lying within the Sub-Registry of Araria, i.e. plot No. 501 of Khata No. 45. According to him, in the record of right there is no such plot under Khata No. 45 in which one Bibi Serajul had 3 annas interest. Rani Devi, the vendor of O.P. No. 1 claimed interest in the said land under a deed of gift executed by Bibi Serajul. The deed which was produced by O.P. No. 1 shows that the same is unregistered. It is submitted that under Sec. 17(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, a Deed of Gift of whatever value has to be registered. According to Mr. Chatterji, it is true that Muslims can make an oral Hiba, but if a Deed is executed, then it must be registered.

4. Sec. 123 of the transfer of Property Act does not permit an oral gift. However, Sec. 129 saves an oral Hiba under the Mohammedan law, but a Hibanama is not saved under the Registration Act. Under Sec. 49 of the Registration Act an unregistered Deed cannot be looked into for any purpose. Under Sec. 92 of the Evidence Act if there is a Deed, oral evidence is forbidden in respect of any term of the transaction or disposition of property. Thus, according to him, Rani Devi cannot have any interest even in plot No. 2978 of Khata No. 45 within the jurisdiction of Araria Sub-Registry. Consequently, the registration in respect of suit property was a fraud upon registration and in any view of the matter, when plot No. 501 does not exist in Khata No. 45, the sale deed executed in favour of O.P. No. 1 was invalid and as such, a