IMPORTANT POINT
Gift--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee.

Alok Singh, J.

1 This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant, assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.3.1978 passed by ihe.learned trial Court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and further judgment and decree dated 8.9.1980 passed by the learned first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur, thereby partly decreeing the suit for other properties, however, dismissing the suit for possession of the phintiff for half share of the property in Village Mansowal.

2 The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff instituted the suit of possession of 1/2 share of three different pieces of property of which consisted of 76 kanals 15 marlas of land situated in the area of Village Mansowal and described in details in head note (i) of the plaint and the second consisted of 56 kanals 9 marlas of land situated in the area of Village Dalewal and described in details in head note (ii) of the plaint and third of which was a house situated in the area of village Dalewal. As per the plaintiff, his grandfather Harnam Singh was owner and in possession of 1/2 share of the properties in dispute, who died about 10 years ago. Jagta @ Jagat Singh, father of the plaintiff, however, died during the life-time of his father Harnam Singh 15 years ago, at that time plaintiff was a minor but now has attained the age of majority, when the present suit was filed on 1.12.1975; that during his childhood, the defendants took forcible and illegal possession of the properties in dispute falling to his share and in connivance with the Revenue Authorities got mutation attested in favour of them. Hence, the present suit.

3 Defendants contested the suit. It was alleged by the defendants that the property mentioned at head note(i) was owned and possessed by Hazara Singh, father of Harnam Singh; said Hazara Singh made a valid gift in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 about 45 years ago in lieu of service as chelas and grandsons; as regards properties mentioned at head note (ii) and (iii) of the plaint, Harnam Singh has made a valid Will in favour of defendant No. 3 and Kultar Singh son of defendant No. 1; after the death of Kultar Singh, his share in those properties went to defendant No. 4, his mother; they added that Harnam Singh died about 14 years ago; that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction; was not within time and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to sue.

4 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :-

"1. Whether Harnam Singh was owner of the entire property in suit ?

2. Whether Harnam Singh made a valid Will, as alleged, in favour of defendant No. 3 and one Kartar Singh, of properties at head notes (ii) and (iii) ?

3. Whether property at head note (i) was owned by Hazara Singh and he gifted it in favour of defendants No. 1,2 as alleged ?

4. Whether the building at head note (iii) were built by defendants No. 1, 2 as alleged ? If so, its effect ?

5. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ?

6. Whether suit is within time ?

7. Whether defendant No. 4 has been correctly described, if not its effect ?

8. Relief?"

5 Learned trial Court has held that plaintiff has failed to prove that Harnam Singh was owner of 1/2 share of the properties in dispute and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

6 Feeling aggrieved from the dismissal of the suit by the learned trial Court, he preferred first appeal. Learned first Appellate Court partly dismissed the suit for possession of the plaintiff for half share of the property in Village Mansowal.

7 During the hearing of the first appeal, learned first Appellate Court has recorded the concession given by learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant to the effect that Hazura Singh had gifted the land measuring 76 kanals 15 marlas situated in the area of Village Mansowal as mentioned in details in head-note (ii) of the plaint to Joginder Singh and Karam