R.L. Khurana, J.—This Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14th Match, 1989, of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

1.. In the areas, where section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable, whether gift to be valid must be followed by delivery of possession if the donor is in possession and is capable of giving delivery of possession and whether mutation in the name of donee alone is sufficient ?

2. Whether delivery of possession is necessary Hindu Law, if the parties are governed by Hindu Law, to make oral gift complete especially when the provisions of section 123 of Transfer of Property Act were not applicable ?

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute It was averred that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and that in the month of April !98O, on obtaining the copies of the revenue record, it was revealed that the land in dispute has been wrongly mutated in favour of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1) It was further averred that the revenue entires showing the land in dispute under the ownership and possession of defendant No 1 were wrong and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff In the alternative, it was averred that in case defendant No 1 is found to be in possession of the land in dispute, a decree for possession may be passed.

3. Defendant No, 3, vide his written statement has admitted the claim and suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No, 2 has denied the averments of the plaintiff and has stated that a part of the land in dispute was mortgaged with him by defendant No. 1, which mortgage stood redeemed and that he has never been in possession of the land in dispute It is further pointed out by defendant No 2 that defendant No, 3 Jagat Singh, has been in possession of the land in dispute.

4. Defendant No I, while resisting and contesting the suit of the plaintiff has asserted herself to be the owner and in possession of the land in dispute It was averred that the land in dispute was gifted in her favour by defendant No 3 vide mutation No. 176 dated 31st December, 1910. Such mutation of gift was never challenged either by way of appeal or revision by the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is now estopped from challenging the same Further case of defendant No, 1 is that the alleged gift pertaining to the year 1961 alleged lo have been made by defendant No 3 in favour of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void, inasmuch as the same was not followed by possession Alternatively, it was pleaded that defendant No. 3 was the attorney of the plaintiff whereby he was authorised to deal with the land in dispute in any manner he deemed fit. Acting as general attorney for the plaintiff defendant No. 3 Jagat Singh was competent to execute a gift in favour of defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff has also attorned all the acts of his attorney.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: I Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land ? OPP II. In case the plaintiff is held to be the owner of the suit land and not in possession, then in it circumstances, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land in the alternative ? OPP III. Whether the defendant No, 3 was the owner of the suit land at the time of making the gift dated 31-12-1970 vide mutation No 176? OPD IV Whether defendant No. 3 executed a valid gift dated 31-12-1970 in favour of the defendant No I, if so its effect ? OPD V If issue No 3 not proved, whether defendant No. 3 was the attorney of the plaintiff at the time of making the gift of the suit land vide mutation No 176 dated 3M2-1970 ? OPD VI Whether the plaintiff is estopped to impeach the said gift by his