A gift under Muslim Law requires three conditions to be satisfied: (1) a declaration of gift by the donor, (2) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and (3) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee.

1. This Second Appeal is by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 155 of 1986, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tirukoilur. She filed the suit for declaration of her title over the schedule properties, and also for a declaration that she is entitled to the same after the lifetime of the 4th defendant, and for a permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant from alienating suit items 7 and 8, and for costs of suit.

2. The material averments of the case that led to the filing of the present Second Appeal may be summarised as follows:—

The Scheduled properties belonged to late Ibran Khan Sahib son of Khadhar Khan Sahib. He executed a settlement deed on 20.7.1946 in favour of his daughter, the 4th defendant herein, and her husband Sheik Ghouse Sahib. The husband of the 4th defendant also happened to be the sisters son of the executant. As per that deed, the settlees were to enjoy the properties settled without any power of alienation during the lifetime of the settlor and his wife Ayeesha Bivi and after their lifetime absolutely to the male or female issues of the settlees. If is said that the settlement deed was accepted and acted upon, pattas for the properties also were changed in the name of the settlees. In pursuance of the deed the settlees took possession of the properties, enjoyed them and paid kist also. It is further said that on the execution of the settlement deed, the settlers title was lost by valid and due execution of the gift deed and possession passed on to the settlees in pursuance of it. It is further averred that a sale deed was executed by the settlor on 6-7-1950 in favour of the same persons in respect of the same properties for a stated consideration. According to the plaintiff, the document is not valid and the recitals as to consideration were absolutely false. Once the settlement deed was executed, he had no right to convey the title to the same person or to any other person. The settlees also do not claim any title under the latter deed. It is said that the plaintiff is the only daughter of the 4th defendant. The father of the plaintiff who happens to be one of the beneficiaries under the settlement deed dated 20-7-1946, namely, Sheik Ghouse Sahib died on 24.5.1982, and, under the terms of the settlement deed, the plaintiff is entitled to absolute title after the lifetime of the 4th defendant. It is further said that the settlees have executed a settlement deed in favour of the first defendant who is also a close relation, in respect of some of the plaint items. They have also executed a sale deed in respect of some of the items, in favour of the second defendant, and the 4th defendant has executed a document in favour of the third defendant. These alienations, according to the plaintiff, are invalid, and even if they have got any validity, they come to an end on the death of the 4th defendant. It is further said that there was no necessity for the 4th defendant to throw away the properties to the detriment of the plaintiff since the 4th defendant is entitled to be in possession during the lifetime, and there is no question of limitation for recovery of possession. It is on the above allegations, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated above.

3. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he has stated that the suit is not maintainable and the document dated 20.7.1946 is a sham document, which has not come into effect, and the original owner continued to deal with the property. In fact, the document was executed at a time when some litigations were pending against the executant, initiated by his brother and his brothers children. It is said that a reading of the document also makes it clear that it was not intended to come into operation, and possession continued to be with the original owner. It is said that he got valid title by virtue of the documents executed by the 4th defendant and her husband, who obtained title as per sale deed executed by the original owner on 6.7.1950