I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is a second appeal, which has arisen out of a judgment and decree, dated 22.11.2010, passed, in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2009, by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2009, passed, in Title Suit No. 232 of 2007, by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

2. I have heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel, for the defendant-appellants, and Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, for the plaintiff-respondents.

3. Briefly put, the case of the respondent, as plaintiff, is as follows :

The plaintiff's father, Kobejuddin @ Kobej Sk., was the owner of the suit land. During his lifetime, Kobejuddin gifted the suit land, on 3.1.1994, by executing an unregistered gift deed and delivered possession of the suit land to her on the same day. Before obtaining the possession, the plaintiff constructed her residential house over the suit land and remained, on the suit land, by paying revenue and got her name mutated, too, in the record of rights. However, after the death of her father, the defendants, (i.e., appellants herein), who are her own brothers, started disturbing her possession and, on 16.1.2007, the defendants armed with deadly weapons, trespassed to the suit land, demolished the houses of the plaintiff, dispossessed the plaintiff there from and illegally occupied the suit land by constructing a hut with CI sheet roofing. The plaintiff lodged a criminal case, in this regard, at Mankachar Police Station. The plaintiff, therefore, in the suit, sought for, inter alia, declaration of her rights, title and interest over the suit land and also a decree of khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants there from.

4. Before proceeding further, it needs to be noted that in terms of the order, dated 23.4.2008, the suit proceeded ex parte against the defendants and the order, dated 23.4.2008, which has remained unchallenged till date. Though the defendants were not allowed to file their written statements, they were, indeed, allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and also adduce evidence if they so wished. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined 3 witnesses including herself. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defendants.

5. As the suit had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal as indicated above. The appeal having been dismissed, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.

6. Appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellants, Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel, has challenged the decree on two grounds, namely, that the gift deed, in the present case, was an unregistered gift deed, which is, according to Mr. Sharma, inadmissible evidence and as there is no registered gift deed, no title passed to the plaintiff and no declaration of rights, title and interest and/or recovery of possession could have been legally granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, This apart, according to Mr. Sharma, there is no convincing evidence on record that the plaintiff had accepted the gift by taking over possession of the suit land and, in such circumstances, there was, contends Mr. Sharma, no valid transfer of title from the owner, namely, Kobejuddin, to the plaintiff-respondent. Yet another ground of challenge posed to the impugned decree is that no issue was framed in the present case and, in such circumstances, the decree ought not to have been maintained by the learned first appellate court.

7. Countering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, submits that the parties to the suit are Mohammadan and, in Mohammadan law, gift can be made orally and the mere fact that the gift was reduced into writing, it cannot become a formal document or instrument of gift and did not, therefore, require registration. The fact of the matter remains, according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, that there is enough evidence on reco