The central legal point established in the judgment is that under Hindu Law, delivery of possession is necessary for a valid gift, and the nature of the suit land must correspond to the gifted land.

V.M. Jain, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bathinda.

2. Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of 1/3rd share in the agricultural land measuring 301 kanals 15 marla situated in village Bhagi Bandar, detailed in the heading of the plaint, claiming herself to be the owner of the said land by virtue of gift deed dated 14.5.1951 allegedly executed by Gujjar Singh in her favour and also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property to any third person, in any manner, whatsoever. It was alleged that Gujjar Singh was the father of Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff whereas Smt. Dhan Kaur and Smt. Gurdial Kaur defendants were the widows of Maghar Singh, pre-deceased son of Gujjar Singh. It was alleged that said Gujjar Singh was the owner of 1/3rd share in the suit property and that during his lifetime, Gujjar Singh had executed a valid registered gift deed on 14.5.1951 in favour of the plaintiff and by virtue of the said gift deed, the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property, which had been carved out during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land, which was given to her by way of gift. It was alleged that the plaintiff remained in joint ownership with her co-sharers and that now about 3 years back, she had been dispossessed. It was alleged that the defendants took undue advantage of her absence from the village and illegally got the mutation of inheritance of Gujjar Singh sanctioned in their favour behind the back of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendants were well aware of the fact about the gift deed having been executed in her favour by Gujjar Singh in respect of the suit land but the defendants did not disclose this fact to the revenue authorities at the time of the attestation of the mutation. It was alleged that since the mutation does not confer title, the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. It was alleged that taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue records, the defendants were out to alienate the suit land. It was accordingly prayed that a decree for possession of 1/3rd share in the agricultural land measuring 301 kanal 15 marla detailed in the heading of the plaint be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants be restrained from alienating the suit property to any third person, in any manner, whatsoever.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, various preliminary objections including the question of limitation, locus standi and adverse possession were taken. On merits, it was alleged that the plaintiff was in no way related to Gujjar Singh deceased. It was further alleged that Gujjar Singh was never in possession of the agricultural land though he was the owner of 1/3rd share. It was further alleged that if the alleged gift deed was proved the same was without consideration and Gujjar Singh was not competent to execute the same as the property was of joint Hindu family. It was further alleged that the possession was never delivered to the plaintiff and she never come in possession of the suit land and even if any such gift deed was proved, the same had no legal value. It was further alleged that mutation in favour of the defendants had rightly been sanctioned as the defendants were the only legal heirs of Gujjar Singh deceased. It was further alleged that the defendants were competent to alienate the suit property being the absolute owner thereof. It was accordingly prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The plaintiff filed replication. Various issues were framed. Both the sides led evidence. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that