Rajamannar, C.J.- Two points were raised by Mr. Parthasarathy Ayyangar, learned counsel for the Appellant in this case. One is that the learned Judge, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., erred in law in holding that the gift by the second defendant to the plaintiff of his share in the suit property was valid. The contention was that as the donee was entitled only to an undivided share, the gift was invalid because of the doctrine of musha under the Muhammadan Law. As the learned Judge observed, the prevailing view is that a gift of an undivided share which is capable of division is not void. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute this but argued that such a division could be made only by the donor himself and relied on the decision of the Lahore High Court in Said Hassan v. Shah Hussain1. That decision has obviously no application to the facts of the present case because there it was possible for the donor to have made a division himself and deliver the share which was the subject-matter of the gift. In the case before us the facts are entirely different. The donor has made a gift of his entire interest to the plaintiff. That interest was a share in a property It will not be possi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document