The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper endorsement on stamp papers for oral gift memorandums and the significance of possession and documentary evidence in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, who is daughter-in-law of Mohd. Balal, now deceased represented through her legal representatives. The respondent in the present case is the daughter of Mohd. Balal who had already expired on 04.01.2009 before the institution of the suit on 07.10.2010.

2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit for declaration of the plaintiff regarding the claim of her ownership on the basis of the possession and alleged oral gift by her father-in-law, which pertained to House No. B-2/251 measuring 206. square yards, the boundaries of which were given in the plaint. Resultantly, the claim for permanent injunction was also dismissed while dismissing the suit by holding that nothing had been brought on record to show that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit property.

3. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Courts below were in error in dismissing the suit since an oral gift was permissible under Muslim Law and the condition was only that there had to be declaration of gift by the owner, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession. It is, thus, submitted that the father-in-law had given oral gift of the said property on 25.01.2006 to the daughter-in-law and the possession had also been handed over at that point of time. The memorandum of oral gift had been put in place on 01.02.2008. After the death of Mohd. Balal, the dispute had arisen as the defendant had wanted to alienate the suit property and was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff.

4. The defence of the respondent-daughter was of denial of the said oral gift and the fact that the property had been gifted to the wife of the deceased, Bashiran on 08.04.2004 and possession had also been delivered to her on account of the said gift. The memorandum of the oral gift was also prepared on 23.02.2005 and on account of that Mohd. Balal had ceased to be owner of the property. Bashiran in April, 2006 had further gifted the property to the daughter, respondent herein and the memorandum of oral gift had been prepared on 17.04.2007.

5. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Trial Court at Malerkotla in its judgment dated 07.09.2017 took into consideration the earlier litigation i.e. a suit filed by Mohd. Sarwar against his father Mohd. Balal, in which defence had been taken that the shop had been gifted to his wife Bashiran and possession had also been delivered. It was noticed that the written statement (Ex. D28) had been filed on 19.03.2005 by the deceased donor at that point of time and, therefore, reliance was placed upon the memorandum reduced in writing on 23.02.2005 to come to the conclusion that there would be no question of gifting the suit property to the plaintiff on 25.01.2006, thereafter. It was noticed that the defendant had also proved the gift in favour of the wife Bashiran as Ex. DW 2/Aby examining DW-2 Rati Mohd., Advocate, who was the Notary and had affixed his stamp on the same. Resultantly, property was given as a gift to the wife at an earlier point of time. The factum of possession was also held not to be with the plaintiff-appellant in the absence of any document in the form of any electricity bill, water bill. Rather in the cross- examination the plaintiff had stated that she could not produce the electricity bill of the house and neither any photograph regarding possession had been placed on record. It was noticed that the respondent- defendant on the other hand had placed on record photographs Ex. D3 to D7 pertaining to the house and, therefore, issue No. 1 regarding the declaration of the plaintiff was decided against her and in favour of the defendant. The suit was accordingly dismissed by denying the injunction also under issue No. 2. Issues No. 3 to 5 were disposed of as not being pressed by the defendant as the onus was upon the defendant regarding the maintainability and cause of action etc.

6. The Appellate Court at Sangrur had als