Defendant is the appellant. The question of law raised in the second appeal is a simple one. It relates to the admissibility of an unregistered document styled as a gift deed executed by Kamalamma in favour of the defendant in 1930. The trial Court rejected it as being inadmissible for want of Registration. The lower appellate Court, while holding that it was admissible only for proving the nature and character of possession, held that its probative value was practically nil: but that document was not marked in evidence even for that limited purpose. The main contention of the learned advocate for the appellant was that, under Muhammadan Law, a reg1stered deed is not necessary to effect a gift, that the gift deed was admissible in evidence, even though it was unreg1stered and that in any event, it ought to have been marked in evidence and relied on for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession. For the purpose of appreciating the contentions, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts as found by Courts below.

The defendant’s mother was the owner of an extent of acres 1.98 in S. N. 28/2. She had two sons, the defendant herein and Pedda B