A valid gift must ordinarily be followed by possession.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Sangrur, vide which the appeal filed by Mukhtiar Kaur appellant was dismissed with costs.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Gurdial Kaur widow of Kartar Singh, resident of village Gujran. Tehsil and District Sangrur, owned land measuring 84 bighas 9 biswas kham. She gifted that land by means of a registered gift deed dated 6-10-1956 in favour of her two daughters namely Gulab Kaur and Mukhtiar Kaur. Gurdial Kaur filed a suit against her daughters Mukhtiar Kaur and Gulab Kaur, for declaration that the gift-deed dated 6-10-1956, executed by her in favour of her daughters, was null and void on the ground that she was a simpleton woman and fraud had been practised upon her, for getting gift-deed executed. She further pleaded that the facts mentioned in the gift-deed, that the defendants had lived with her after, their marriage and rendered services to her, were wrong and that she had not parted with the possession of the land in favour of her daughters. The suit was decreed ex parte on July 17, 1959. Mukhtiar Kaur made an application to get the ex parte decree set aside. That application was still pending when Gurdial Kaur died. Her daughter Gulab Kaur was substituted as her legal representative. The application filed by Mukhtiar Kaur was dismissed on 17-8-1964. Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur filed an appeal against the order of dismissal of that application which was accepted and the case was remanded for fresh trial. Gulab Kaur, who had already been impleaded as a legal representative of Gurdial Kaur, was arrayed as a plaintiff in the suit.

3. The suit was contested by Mukhtiar Kaur and the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the parties are governed by custom in matters of gift? O. P.

2. Whether the gift in question was executed as a result of fraud ? O. P.

3. Whether the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the donees as alleged ? O. D. (onus objected)

4. Whether the gift was not accepted by the donees, if so, with what effect ? O. D.

5. Whether the plaint is bad for having not been signed and verified by the plaintiff ? O. D.

6. Relief.

The trial Court decreed the suit and its judgment was affirmed by the District Judge, Sangrur.

4 The learned counsel for the appellant raised a legal objection contending that the plaint was not signed by Gurdial Kaur, who had originally filed the same. He further pointed out that its verification was also defective. Thus according to him the plaint is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant further urged that Mst. Gurdial Kaur had executed the gift-deed dated 6-10-1956 in favour of Gulab Kaur and Mukhtiar Kaur, that both Mukhtiar Kaur and Gulab Kaur were present at the time of execution of the gift-deed, that in the gift-deed it is specifically stated that Gulab Kaur and Mukhtiar Kaur were rendering service to her, that both of them (the daughters) and their husbands were living with Gurdial Kaur and that all these circumstances indicated that the possession of the land had also been given to them (the donees). In view of all these facts he urged that the suit filed originally by Gurdial Kaur and pursued by Gulab Kaur, as her legal representative, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Order VI, Rule 14, Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) requires that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any). A plaint can also be signed by any person, duly authorised by the plaintiff, in case the plaintiff is absent. It is not disputed that Gurdial Kaur had not signed the plaint, rather it was signed by her lawyer. The plaint has also not been verified by Gurdial Kaur, rather it has been verified by her counsel. Under O. VI, R. 15 of the Code verification of the plaint can be made by any person, proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. In the instant case Shri Krishan Mohan Jauhar, counsel for Gurdial K