The judgment established the legal principles related to the formalities of gift under Muslim Law, the requirements of registration for gift deeds, and the delivery of possession for oral gifts.

As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.:-

1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.203-A/1995 by the 7th Addl. District Judge, Raipur.

2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff and defendant are sister and brother. Their father namely Sardar Khan, who died on 25.11.1968, was having certain movable and immovable properties at Raipur and village Seoni. The entire properties were owned by him. According to the plaint allegations, the house bearing Municipal house No. 254 to 257 were the properties situated at Raipur and in village Seoni, there were agricultural lands admeasuring 7 acres. Apart from this, there were also movable properties of their father like ornaments of gold & silver (as specified in the plaintiff). The further allegations are that the houses were under the occupation of the tenants and 50% of the rent was being sent to the plaintiff by the defendant. The cause of action arose when the defendant stopped payment of said portion of rent to the plaintiff. The notices sent by the plaintiff in this regard were also not responded by him. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her title to the extent of 1/3 share, partition and separate possession of suit houses, agricultural lands and movable properties and also for rendition of accounts in relation to the income and earning from tenanted accommodation and agricultural lands and for payment of her share in the said income.

3. The defendant filed his written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. About the immovable properties it was specifically pleaded by him vide para 2(a) of the written statement that Sardar Khan gifted his entire immovable properties to him through a written gift deed dated 28.1.1963 and the possession of the same was also handed over to him. Since then he holds the possession of these properties (immovable properties) in his exclusive rights. About movable properties it was pleaded vide para 2(c) that they were also given by oral gift to the defendant by his father and the possession thereof was handed over to him on 28.1.1963. However, he denied about the specifications of the ornaments described in para 2(c) of the plaint.

4. The learned trial Court framed various issues in this case and after recording evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff could not establish that she also succeeded the properties of her father to the extent of 1/3 share in them. It was also held that the father has executed a gift deed dated 28.01.1963 Ex.D-2, in relation to the immovable properties and the possession thereof was also handed over to the defendant which makes the defendant owner of the said properties. It was further held that the father had made an oral gift in relation to the movable properties and the possession thereof was also handed over to the defendant on 28.1.1963. It is against this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed this first appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to para 2(a) of the written statement, the defendant has pleaded that the immovable properties were transferred to him through a gift deed dated 28.1.1963 (Ex. D.2), but this document is not registered, therefore, it cannot be held to be a document of valid transfer. He also argued that vide para 2( c) of the written statement though there are averments about an oral gift, but that gift was also not complete because the defendant himself pleaded that the possession of ornaments etc., were handed over to him on 28.1.1963 which was a subsequent date to the date of oral gift, therefore the defendant could not establish his ownership and possession of the suit properties on the basis of written gift or oral gift as has been pleaded by him. He further submitted that even otherwise also, by evidence, neither the oral gift nor the written document has been proved.

6. On the o