PATHAK, J. :- This special appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court affirming the dismissal of a suit by the trial Court.

2. Rafi Ullah Khan had a son, Rafi-ul-Qadar. Rafi-ul-Qadar had two wives, of whom the appellant. Noor Jehan Begum, is one. The first respondent, Muftkhar Dad Khan, is a son by the other wife.

3. According to the appellant, on September 5, 1916 Rafi Ullah Khan executed a gift deed in favour of the appellant transferring a grove comprised in three plots with a total area of 16.23 acres situated in Mauja Ahmadpur Niazpur, pergana and tehsil Shahjahanpur, district Shahjahanpur. It is alleged that Rafi Ullah Khan put her in proprietary possession of the grove. Admittedly, no mutation proceedings were taken at the time. In September 1942, Rafi Ullah Khan caused a mutation application to be filed by the appellant and conveyed his written consent to the mutation. Before the mutation proceedings could conclude Rafi Ullah Khan died on September 25, 1942. Thereafter, the first respondent opposed the mutation application and it was rejected. Upon a subsequent application, mutation was effected in favour of the first respondent, the third to tenth respondents and one Shirin Begum, who claimed to be another wife of Rafi Ullah Khan. Alleging that she was the rightful owner of the grove under the gift deed, the appellant instituted the present suit praying for declaration and possession in respect of the grove and also for damages on account of two Shisham trees cut down by the first respondent.

4. The suit was contested by the first and second respondents. The defence in the main was that Rafi Ullah Khan did not execute any gift deed in favour of the appellant, that in any event he never intended to act upon the gift deed and he continued as before in proprietary possession and enjoyment of the grove and possession never passed to the appellant. It was further, alleged that a few days before his death when Rafi Ullah Khan was unconscious the appellant obtained his thumb impression on some blank papers which were later employed in mutation proceedings in her favour. Subsequently, after Rafi Ullah Khan's death the appellant herself made an application on December 20, 1942 as guardian of the minor heirs of Rafi Ullah Khan praying that mutation be effected in their favour and the other heirs. That resulted in the grove being recorded in the names of the respondents.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit It found that the gift deed was executed by Rafi Ullah Khan, that the appellant accepted the gift but that Rafi Ullah Khan, never delivered possession of the grove to the appellant, and that the gift deed was never acted upon. It also found that Rafi Ullah Khan was not in his senses from September 20, 1942 to September 25, 1942 and remained in a stupor up to his death, in which condition his thumb impression was obtained on blank papers which were later written upon purporting to convey his consent to mutation in favour of the appellant.

6. An appeal by the appellant against the decree of the trial Court has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, and now this special appeal has been preferred.

7. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that there was a completed gift of the grove by Rafi Ullah Khan in favour of the appellant

8. According to Mulla's "Principles of Mahomedan Law" it is essential to the validity of a gift that there should be (a) a declaration of a gift by the donor (b) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and © delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee (16th Ed, Section 149, P. 141). There should be a delivery of such possession as the subject of the gift is susceptible Ibid, S. 150, P. 142. If these conditions are complied with, the gift is complete.

9. The gift deed dated September 5, 1916 recited that the donor, Rafi Ullah Khan, had made a gift of the grove to the