The main legal point established is that under Muslim Law, the requirements of a valid gift include declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession, and consideration is not essential for an oral gift of immovable property.

1. This second appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 21.2.1992 passed by Addl. District Judge, Barabanki in First Appeal No.192 of 1989.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The following substantial questions of law have been raised by learned counsel for the appellants.

(1)Whether in absence of pleadings regarding oral gift, plaintiffs can derive valid title entitling the plaintiffs to bring a suit for possession.

(2)Whether any consideration is required under Muslim Law for making an oral gift valid in the eyes of law.

4. Second appeal is admitted. Learned counsel for both the parties are ready for arguments, hence this appeal is taken up for disposal.

5. The respondents no.1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession against the appellants and respondents no.4 to 11 (hereinafter referred as the defendants) alleging that Hakim Buniyad Husain had gifted property in dispute to plaintiff no.3 Arif Husain by oral gift in June, 1963 and the plaintiff no.3 remained in possession of the property in dispute but when the plaintiff no.3 collected the material for construction, the defendant no.7 raised objection and tried to disposses him. The plaintiff no.3 moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki on 20.10.1976, regarding which proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were drawn on 30.10.1976. Having knowledge of the said proceedings, the defendant no.7 along with professional criminals took possession forcibly over the land in dispute in the absence of plaintiff no.3. The plaintiff no.3 executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 on 20/21.1.1977 and handed over the possession to plaintiffs no.1 and 2. Later on the plaintiff no.3 came to know that defendant no.7 Kasim Mohd. Yasin had also executed a sale deed dated 19.1.1977 in favour of the defendants no.1 to 6 which is void. The plaintiff no.3 could not pursue the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., therefore, defendants no.1 to 6 remained in possession of the property and are not ready to hand over the possession, therefore, the Civil Suit No.32 of 1980 was filed.

6. The defendant no.7 Mohd. Yasin in his written statement denied the oral gift in favour of plaintiff no.3 and claimed that the said property was orally gifted by Hakim Buniyad Husain to him in January, 1965 and after that he had executed the sale deed on 18.1.1977 in favour of defendants no.1 to 6 and delivered possession to them. The defendants no.1 to 6 in their written statements have supported the version of defendant no.7 and have stated that the defendant no.7 was ostensible owner of the property in dispute regarding which the plaintiffs have not made any objection, therefore, the defendant no.7 has rightly executed the sale deed to defendants no.1 and 6.

7. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether Hakim Buniyad Husain had executed oral gift of the disputed property in favour of plaintiff no.3 as alleged in para 12 of the plaint.

(2) Whether plaintiff no.3 has executed sale deed in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 as alleged in para 20 of the plaint.

(3) Whether defendant no.7 has dispossessed the plaintiff no.3 from the property in dispute as alleged in para 20 of the plaint.

(4) Whether plaintiffs have matured their title by adverse possession.

(5) Whether Hakim Buniyad Husain had made oral gift in favour of defendant no.7 as alleged in the para 37 & 38 of the written statement.

(6)Whether the defendants have matured their title by adverse possession as alleged in para 45 of the written statement of defendant no.7.

(7)Whether the defendant no.7 is the ostensible owner of the property in dispute as alleged in the para 32 of the written statement of defendants no.1 and 6.

(8) Whether defendant no.7 has executed a sale deed in favour of defendants no.1 and 6.

(9) Whether the defendants are bonafide purchaser for cons