IMPORTANT POINT
A gift made by a Mohammedan donor in writing is not compulsorily registerable.

Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.— Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission as the notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order dated 27.4.2009.

2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Samudrapur on 18.3.2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for exhibiting the document dated 11.4.1966 called the Bakshis Patra.

3. The petitioners are the original defendants. The defendants had filed the documents and since the trial court had not exhibited the document dated 11.4.1966, called Bakshis Patra, on the ground that the document was not a registered document, the petitioners filed an application for exhibiting the document for effectively deciding the dispute between the parties. It was the case of the petitioner that the document dated 11.4.1966 was admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination and the document being 30 years old, ought to have been exhibited.

4. The prayer made by the petitioner in the said application was strongly opposed by the respondent. The trial court, by order dated 18.3.2009 rejected the application.

5. Shri Akbani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application by holding that the document was compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the document was a Hiba or Gift under the Muslim Law and perusal of the document dated 11.4.1966 clearly revealed that it was in the form of a memorandum written and signed by five panchas on a statement made by the donor. The learned counsel for the petitioner then relied on the provisions of Section 149 of the Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law and Section 129 of the Transfer of Properties Act, to submit that it is not necessary to register the gift deed under the Muslim Law and nothing in Chapter of the Transfer of Property Act, would affect any rule of Mohammedan Law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application by holding that the gift deed was compulsorily registrable as the petitioner had not stated in the application, as to whether the gift was made under the Muslim Law or was made under the General Law.

6. Shri A. S. Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 6 supported the order passed by the trial court and relied on the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1962 AP 1991 and to canvass that the Mohammedans are not prevented to effect transfer in the manner under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and since it was the case of the petitioner that the document dated 11.4.1966 was a Hiba or gift under the Muslim Law, it was rightly held that the document required registration and the said document could not be exhibited. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the document was compulsorily registrable and the trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. In any case, according to learned counsel for the respondents, exhibition of document is just marking it for identification and mere exhibition of the document would not prove the contents of the documents as true. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on an unreported decision of this court in Criminal Application No.714/2009 dated 3.4.2009 to substantiate his submission.

7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the relevant provisions of the Mohammedan Law and the Transfer of Properties Act along with the impugned order dated 18.3.2009. I have also perused the document dated 11.4.1966. A bare perusal of the document dated 11.4.1966 prima facie shows that it is not a gift in the nature of gift which is made under the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the Mohammedan Donor in this case has merely made a