THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 5331 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 20.09.2010 in E.A.No.46 of 2009 in E.P.No.173 of 2008 in O.S.No.216 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The 1st respondent has obtained a decree for money and filed the Execution Petition and at the time of institution of the suit attachment of the properties were sought and the Court has granted attachment before judgment. Subsequently, on contest the suit was decreed and no appeal was preferred by the 2nd respondent, who is the judgment- debtor. The present claim petitioner is the wife of the judgment-debtor and she claims that the schedule property was orally gifted to her on 28.12.2000 and she accepted the same and obtained possession from her husband on the same day, which was said to be a Ramzan day and it was mentioned in the petition that the gift was in the presence of her relatives and friends according to Muslim Law. Subsequently, for the evidence of the alleged oral gift, a document was said to have been executed on 12.01.2001 and, therefore, she is the owner of the property and that property is liable for attachment. The 1st respondent in the petition, who is the decree holder, has filed a counter disputing the alleged gift and also the alleged document in support of the oral gift and pleaded that in the suit the judgment- debtor, who is the husband of the petitioner, has specifically stated that he is not going to alienate any of the properties and he has not taken a plea that the schedule property was gifted to the petitioner as claimed now and, therefore, there is no valid gift and the claim of the revision petitioner is only to defeat and delay the execution of the decree obtained by the decree-holder. The lower Court after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Ex.A-1 and the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.B-1 dismissed the application and aggrieved by the said order the present revision is filed. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner has got any interest in the schedule property and if so, attachment is liable to be raised? POINT: There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner and the judgment-debtor are wife and husband. As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there is no prohibition under any law for the husband giving the property to his wife either by way of gift or Will. The question is as to whether the alleged gift pleaded by the revision petitioner is true or not. Evidently, when a oral gift is pleaded by the petitioner, it is the duty of the petitioner to establish the factum of the gift. The date of gift is said to be 28.12.2000, which is said to be a Ramzan day. Though strictly the law does not require that document should be executed to evidence the oral gift. The law requires that there should be proof that there was a declaration of gift in the presence of the elders and that was accepted by the donee. In the petition, the particulars of the persons, who were present at the time of the alleged gift is conspicuously absent. It was not mentioned as to in whose presence the said gift was given and as to the time when the declaration was given and how it was accepted by the petitioner. Therefore, the essential formality of a valid oral gift is not specifically pleaded and more so, no other witnesses except P.W.2, who is the son of the petitioner and the judgment-debtor were examined to prove the gift. When the vary factum of the gift on 28.12.2000 is not proved as required under law, the subsequent document Ex.A-1 said to be evidencing the oral gift is of no value and it cannot be taken into consideration since it is not registered as it amounts to a document of gift, which was referring to an earlier transaction. Therefore, this document also cannot confer any rights on the petitioner. Added to that the conduct of the judgment-debtor has also to be taken into consideration. The suit was filed in the year 2006. Attachment before judgment was sought for and a counter was filed by the judgment-debtor stating that he has no intention to alienate the properties and is a rich man and there was no necessity to defraud the decree holder. If really, the oral gift on 28.12.2000 is true, as evidenced by the subsequent agreement or the confirmation Ex.A-1, then the judgment-debtor would have specifically stated in the counter that the property does not belong to him since he has already gifted away the property to his wife. The learned counsel for the decree holder represents that an order of attachment was passed after hearing both the parties and it was confirmed by the Court. That being so, the present attachment of the judgment debtor as R.W.2 to support the claim of the petitioner clearly speaks as to how the petitioner and the judgment-debtor could have colluded and are attempting to defeat the decree. Added to that a gift has given to the petitioner in the year 2000, till 2009 when the application has been filed, there was no application before the Municipality for mutation of the property or there is no evidence of payment of the taxes. If really, the petitioner is the owner of the property, naturally the conduct is expected for effecting mutation and payment of the taxes. Therefore, all the circumstances only point to the suspicion that the petitioner has been set up by the judgment-debtor to defeat the rights of the decree holder and there are absolutely no merits in the revision petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. All other petitions are also closed in view of the dismissal of the revision petition. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 23.09.2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 5331 of 2010 DATE: 23-09-2011 MR