IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.163 of 2000 ====================================================== 1(a) Ram Rati Devi, widow of Bharat Rai 1(b) Brij Bihari Pd., son of Late Bharat Rai, residents of Village- Singhia, Biban, P.S.-Banjaria, Distt-East Champaran 1(c) Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav, son of Lae Bharat Rai, residents of Village-Singhia, Biban, P.S.-Banjaria, Distt-East Champaran 2. Sk. Karamullah 3. Sk. Azimullah 4. Sk. Nooruddin alias Md. Nooruddin, sons of late Sk. Quadir 5. Bibi Bhuili, wife of Sk Mainullah, daughter of Sk. Quadir all resident of village-Chailaha, P.S. Bangaria, P.O. Chailaha, District-East Champaran .... .... Appellants Versus 1(a) Most. Darudan Khatoon, widow of Abdul Majid @ Abdul Majid Mian 1(b) Ahmad Mian, son of Abdul Majid @ Abdul Majid Mian 1(c) Akbar Mian, son of Abdul Majid @ Abdul Majid Mian 1(d) Panchia @ Dukhiya, daughter of Abdul Majid @ Abdul Majid Mian 2 Bibi Amna Khatoon, wife of Rojadin, REsident of Village- Turkulia, Tola Kamalpur P.S. Turkolia, district-East Champaran 3 Aziz Mian, son of late Rahim Mian, Resident of village-Singhia Hiban, P.S. Banjaria, P.O. Motihari, District-East Champaran 4 Most. Sakina Khatoon, wife of Bhagalu Mian, daughter of late Rahim Mian, Resident of village-Sariswa, P.O./P.S. Turkulia, district-East Champaran 5 Md. Hasnain 6 Md. Manir both sons of Rojaddin Mian, R/o village-Turkulia Tola Kamalpur, P.O./P.S. Turkulia, District-East Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== 14 20-12-2011 Heard Mrs. Saba Asfaque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal. The defendants who have lost in appeal have filed this second appeal against the judgment of reversal. The suit has been filed praying for declaration that two gift deeds dated 26.07.1976 and 03.09.1980 executed by Rahim Mian in favour of defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 4&5 respectively 2 are not binding upon the plaintiffs and the further prayer has been made for partition of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff is that his father Rahim Mian had executed the gift deeds in favour of defendant no.1, who is sister of the plaintiff, collusively and being totally under influence of defendant no.1. Thereafter, again another gift deed had been executed by Rahim Mian alongwith the daughter Bibi Amna Khatoon (defendant no.1) in favour of defendant nos. 4 and 5 who are the sons of defendant no.1, Bibi Amna Khatoon. It is the case of the plaintiff that those gift deeds had been executed only to deprive the plaintiff from his rightful share in the property and, therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants contested that suit and denied the claim and assertions made by the plaintiff. The Trial Court after considering the evidence, pleadings and rival submissions of the parties upheld the validity of two gift deeds and dismissed the suit. However, the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence in view of the submissions of the parties has reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Mrs. Saba Asfaque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has strongly contended that the appellate Court has misappreciated the evidence on record as well as the principles of Mohammedan Law and has wrongly reversed the findings of the trial court. It has been urged that there was no illegality in execution of the second gift deed and joining of Rahim Mian as one of the donor in the second gift deed as donor will not invalidate the same. The learned counsel has put emphasis upon the fact that non- mentioning of the names of the daughters in the gift deed cannot be taken to be momentous enough to annihilate the gift deeds itself. It is the contention of 3 the learned counsel that both gift deeds are valid and legal and have been executed voluntarily by the donors and all the requirements for legal and effective gift deed have been established in the suit by the defendants. As such, it has been urged that substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel and perusing the impugned judgments, it appears that Rahim Mian was admittedly the father of the plaintiff as well as the defendant nos. 1 and 3 who are his daughters. Rahim Mian had executed the first gift deed in the year 1976 in favour of his one daughter Bibi Amna Khatoon who is defendant no.1. In the said gift deed, it has been stated that Rahim Mian has no sons although it is the admitted fact in this case that Rahim Mian had two sons and two daughters including the plaintiffs. Again Rahim Mian joined with his daughter Bibi Amna Khatoon for execution of another gift deed dated 03.09.1980 in favour of the sons of Bibi Amna Khatoon and others. There are recitals in the second gift deed that the reference to the son of Rahim Mian could not be made in the previous gift deed by mistake. However, in this gift deed also there was no mention of another admitted daughter of Rahim Mian who has been impleaded as defendant no.3 in this suit. The appellate court has elaborately considered the principles of Mohammedan Law with regard to a valid gift deed and has come to the conclusion that gift deeds are not genuine documents executed by Rahim Mian voluntarily. It has also been found that the donees had not been put in possession over the gifted property which was one of the essential ingredients to be present for upholding the validity and genuineness of the gift deeds. The absence of entries of names of the donees has also been taken notice by the appellate Court while examining the validity 4 of the gift deeds in question. The findings of the Appellate Court are based upon elaborate consideration of recitals of the documents and evidence on record and during the course of argument nothing could be shown to establish that the findings are perverse. As such, there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. ASHWINI /- (V. Nath, J.)