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 mate