1

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

SECOND APPEAL No. 321 OF 2006

Tamiz Hussain s/o Tayyab Husain

v.

Abdul Sattar s/o Sk. Gulab

_______________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram

appearances, Court's orders or directions

Court's or Judge's orders

and Registrar's orders

Mr.Tanveer Iqbal Advocate for the appellant.

....

CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

DATED : 29

^h OCTOBER, 2007.

Heard learned counsel for the

appellant.

Concurrent findings of fact

recorded by the courts below are put to

challenge in this second appeal. Both the

courts below have recorded a finding that the

appellant/plaintiff failed to prove ownership

over the suit property which was claimed

under the oral gift-deed alleged to have been

made by one Jamilabi. The trial court upon

appreciation of evidence dismissed the suit.

The appellate court in its judgment in para 16

2

has held as under :

“I am very much afraid

whether the evidence of this material

witness satisfies the requirements of oral

gift of immovable property under

Mohammaden Law. Evidence of this

witness clearly suggests that she

unilaterally without making a public

statement of the gift allegedly gifted

away two acres of land in favour of his

son. There is absolutely no evidence on

her part to show that at the time of

making the gift whether anybody was

present and since it is not so, it is not

clear as to how the important

requirements of declaration of gift is

satisfied. I have already mentioned that

in order that a declaration of gift is

established, it must be shown that the

doner either in presence of witnesses or

otherwise made a public statement that

he gifted the property in favour of the

donee and that he divested himself of the

ownership of the property by delivering

such possession as the property is

capable of to the donee, who accepted

the gift. Unfortunately, it is not so and it

3

can not be said to be a valid gift

inasmuch as it is unknown to law that a

Mohammedan can make a oral gift within

the confines for his house and without

the presence of anybody else and

canvass the plea that by making such a

declaration allegedly of the gift, the valid

requirements of a gift are satisfied.”

From the above, it is seen that the finding of

fact has gone against the appellant and both

the Courts have based the same on evidence

on record and have also found that the oral

gift was not as per the requirements of

Mohammedan Law. I do not find any

substance in the appeal. No substantial

question of law is involved in this appeal.

Second appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE

/TA/