A valid gift of property is established if the donor intended to make a gift and completely divested himself of the ownership of the property in favor of the donee.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Second Appeal No. 195/74 arises out of Title Appeal No. 101 of 1973 which was in respect of Title Suit No. 48, of 1966. The defendants in the suit have lost in both the courts below and have preferred this second appeal.

2. Second Appeal No. 196 of 1974 arises out of Title Appeal No. 90 of 1973 which relates to Title Suit No. 138 of 1969. In that suit the appellants in this appeal were the principal defendants. Besides them, there was another defendant (pro forma defendant No. 5) in that suit. In that suit the reliefs claimed were jointly on behalf of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendant No. 5. That suit was dismissed, and the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 96 of 1973 impleading pro forma defendant No. 5 as pro forma respondent No. 5 in the said appeal Both Title Appeals Nos. 101/73 and 96/73 were disposed of by one judgment by the court below. So by order No. 3 dated 28-8-74 passed in Second Appeal No. 196 of 1974 both these second appeals were ordered to be heard analogously. The suit lands and the basis of claim to the same in the two suits are different, and one was filed after three years of the filing of the other. After hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties I feel that I should better deal with each of the second appeals separately in this judgment.

Second Appeal No. 195 of 1974.

3. The defendants in Title Suit No. 58 of 1966, who have lost in both the courts below, have preferred this appeal. The plaintiffs suit (Title Suit No. 48/ 66) is for ejectment of the defendants (appellants herein) from the suit land, as described in the plaint, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The plaintiffs case in short is that the suit land belonged to one Rani Dei and she made a gift of the suit land and some other properties, as per the registered gift deed Ext. 6, in favour of the deity Sri Fadhamohan Thakur. Nila Bewa, the mother of Rani Dei, who was originally the owner of the suit land, also executed a deed of relinquishment (Nadavi Patra) Ext. 7 in favour of the deity. The deity, represented by its marfatdar Mahanta Madan Mohan Das, sold the suit land along with some other lands to some of the ancestors of the plaintiffs for value by a registered sale deed dated 6-09-1943. From the date of the sale the ancestors of the plaintiffs were and after them the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. In July 1960 defendant No. 1 took the permission of the father of the plaintiffs to keep his (D. 1) cattle temporarily on the suit land. But after some time the defendants stealthily constructed a hutment on the suit land without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. Hence this suit.

5. The defendants case in short is that the plaintiffs and/or their predecessors-in-interest never acquired any title to the suit land and they were never in possession of the suit land. According to the defendants the suit land belongs to their father and it is a put and parcel of their homestead, and they have all along been in possession of the same. They have also alternatively pleaded that they have perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession.

6. The trial court decreedthe plaintiffs suit on thefindings that they have acquired valid title to the suit land by purchasing thesame from the deity as per the registered sale deed Ext. 5, and that they werein possession of the suit land within 12 years of the institution of the suit.The defendants claim over the suit property was not accepted and theywere directed to be evicted from the suit land

7. The appeal preferred by the defendants against the decision of the trial court was dismissed. The appellate court also held that the plaintiffs had acquired valid title to the suit property and that they were in possession of the were. It further held that the defendants came to possess the suit land with the permission of the plaintiffs and as such they were liable