A duly registered gift deed is presumed to be validly executed, and the onus of proving that it is a forged document lies on the person challenging its validity.

G.R.Majithia, J.

1. Defendant, doneeappellant, has assailed the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court reversing on appeal those of the trial Judge and decrteing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of 1/8 share of the disputed property in this regular second appeal.

2. The facts: --

Sunder Singh was the owner of the property in dispute; that he died on July 13, 1973 leaving behind four sons and four daughters ; that he had gifted the suit land vide gift deed, dated June 23, 1973 in favour of his grandson Sukhdev Singh (herein-after referred to donee defendant) ; that Harbhajan Singh, one of the sons of the donor, challenged the gift deed in the suit on the ground that it was a forged document and some body impersonated the donor before the Sub Registrar and that the suit property would devolve upon all the natural heirs of the deceased. The suit was resisted by the donee-defendant. He maintained that Sunder Singh deceased executed a valid gift deed in his favour for the services rendered by him.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: --

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in suit as heir of Sunder Singh deceased ? OPP

2. Whether valid gift has been executed in favour of the defendant No. 1 by Sunder Singh deceased ? If so, to what effect ? OPD

3. Whether defendant No. 1 is in possession of the property in dispute by virtue of gift deed executed in his favour ? OPD

4. Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable ?

5. Relief.

4. The trial Judge answered issue No. 2 in favour of the donee-defendant and held that the donor executed a valid gift deed in his favour; issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the donee-defendant and it was held that the donee-defendant was in possession of the suit land. In view of the decision under issue No. 2, it was held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and the suit was accordingly dismissed.

5. The plaintiff aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Judge challenged the same in first appeal. The first Appellate Court invalidated the gift deed on the ground that the plaintiff and his wife had been serving the donor before his death ; that the donor was a man of weak intellect and he had fallen down from the stairs ; that the one attesting witness of the gift deed was produced and no reliance can be placed on his testimony since he was suspended from the office of lambardar and was asked to relinquish charge.

6. Learned counsel for the donee-defendant submitted that the donor executed a valid gift deed in his favour and that the first Appellate Court took into consideration irrelevant matters to invalidate the gift deed There is substance in the submission made. The following are the essentials of a gift :

(i) There must be a donor and donee ;

(ii) The subject matter of gift must be a certain existing property ;

(iii) The gift must be voluntarily and without consideration ;

(iv) There must be transfer on the part of the donor ;

(v) There must be acceptance by or on behalf of the donee, and such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor ;

(vi) In the case of immovable property, transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested at least by two witnesses.

7. The donor gifted the land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marias comprised in khasra Nos. 2539/2450, 2538/2450, 1883/1 to 1440, 1884/1 to 1440, 1885/1 to 1440, 2018/1 to 1440, 2129/1 to 1440, 2151/1 to 1440, Khata No. 124/228, situated in the revenue estate of Khanpur to the donee defendant vide gift deed, dated June 23,1973. The gift was accepted by the donee and in token thereof, he appended his signatures on it. It is attested by Lambardar Bakhshish Singh of village Khan Pur and by one Labh Singh resident of the same village. The gift detd was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar on June 3, 1973 It was read over to the donor and the witn