A stranger cannot raise an objection regarding the validity of a gift under Mohammedan Law, and partial possession of a gifted property can constitute a valid gift if the donor has done everything in his power to transfer possession to the donee.

1. - Plaintiffs Gulam Mohinuddin and Afzal Hussain have filed this second appeal against the defendants Jalil and Nazir challenging the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed and the judgment of Additional Munsif No. 1, Jaipur was confirmed

2. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants for possession of the apartment house in the suit property mentioned in para I of the plaint The plaintiffs' case is that Maula Bux was the owner of the suit property and he gifted it to Ibrahim through a registered deed dated May 6, 1954. Then Ibrahim gifted this property in favour of the plaintiff on October 23, 1959 by a registered gift deed and handed over the possession of the building to them. Ibrahim often lives at Ahmedabad and when Ibrahim came to Jaipur in marriage of the plaintiff's daughters, defendant Jalil made a request that at that lime he had paucity of accommodation. On this request Ibrahim allowed Jalil to occupy the second storey of the suit property. However, the defendant did not vacate it and did not return it back to Ibrahim. Ibrahim gifted the house in suit to the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of that part of the property. The defendants in the written statement admitted that the suit property belonged to Maula Bux, but it is said that defendant Nazir had been brought up by Maula Bux as a son and the defendant No. 2 began to live with him He was also married in the same house and since then he had been living in the suit property. The gift deed was challenged on the ground that it is forged and fictitious and it was not correct that the defendants were living with permission of Ibrahim is the suit premises. It was pleaded that by living in the premises they have become owners and that the two gift deeds in the suit are not in accordance with the provisions of Mohammedan Law.

3. The issues were framed and evidence was recorded and thereafter the suit was dismissed on the ground that though gift deeds were executed one after the other, but once the title was not transferred, the gift was not valid. The plea of adverse possession of the defendants was not accepted. However, in the sense of delivery of possession as the gift was not valid, the suit was dismissed.

4. The main question canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties relates to the validity of the gift.

5. Mr. Mathur appearing for the appellants submitted that admittedly the ground floor and the first floor of the property was given in possession to the plaintiffs and, therefore, they were in possession of the property. Merely, because so far as the first floor was concerned, as the defendants were living with the permission of Ibrahim, they were requested to vacate the same and that was enough for making the gift valid.

6. Mr. Mathur relied upon the judgment in Chandsaheb Kashimsaheb v. Gangabai Vishnu and Ors. AIR 1921 Bombay 248 ; where part of the property was mortgaged and it was held that possession given for the other part was treated as valid and the donee gets the right to redeem the mortgage. Similarly, in the Patna case in Abul Huque and Ors. v. Mst. Tamizan and Ors. AIR 1927 Patna 20 ; it was held that when donor put the donee in a position to take possession of all the properties in gift, it would be sufficient under the Mohammedan Law to validate the gift.

7. In another case of Madras High Court in Ajagar Nazar Saheb and Ors. v. Chedalvada Annimmah and Ors. AIR 1927 Madras 572 ; and in Mohammed Ayisha Been v. A. Samankatha Madar and another AIR 1945 Madras 95 ; it has been held that when the donee is actually put in possession of a part of the properties, the entire gift is valid i.e., even as regards the property of which possession was not delivered owing to the fact that the donor was not in possession at the time of the gift, especially when the donor has done all that he could do to enable the donee to r