R. S. A. No. 1121 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1121 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 01, 2010 Shagir and others .... Appellants Vs. Shaukat Ali and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by plaintiff-appellants, who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging consent judgment and decree dated 27.09.1997 suffered by Rashid (since deceased) in favour of defendants no.3 to 8 i.e. respondents no.7 to 12. The plaintiffs also sought declaration that plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/5th share each and plaintiffs no.3 to 8 are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/5th share. Rashid was said to be owner of the suit land. He had five sons i.e. plaintiffs no.1 and 2, defendants no.1 and 2 and Maksood (since deceased). Plaintiffs no.3 to 8 are sons of said Maksood. Defendant no.1 has also since died and is now represented by respondents no.1 to 5 as his legal representatives. The plaintiffs alleged that on the death of Rashid, all R. S. A. No. 1121 of 2010 2 his five sons (including branch of pre-deceased son of Maksood), got 1/5th share each in the suit land and the judgment and decree dated 27.09.1997 in favour of defendants no.3 to 8 passed against Rashid is illegal and null and void. It was alleged that the said decree was obtained by fraud. Defendants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that Rashid resided with the defendants, who had been rendering services to him, whereas plaintiffs had shifted to Uttar Pradesh after selling the ancestral land of Rashid in Village Bhilpura. It was also pleaded that the suit land was purchased in the name of Rashid by funds provided by the defendants. Defendants no.3 to 8 are sons of defendants no.1 and 2. The judgment and decree dated 27.09.1997 suffered by Rashid are legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2007, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. First appeal filed by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. At the outset, it has to be noticed that pleadings of the suit, in which consent judgment and decree dated 27.09.1997 were passed, were not produced in evidence by the plaintiffs. In the absence thereof, it cannot be said that the said judgment and decree are illegal and null and void. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that judgment and decree dated 27.09.1997 were produced in evidence as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and perusal of judgment Ex.P-1 reveals that the decree was suffered on the basis of oral gift allegedly made by Rashid in favour of defendants no.3 to 8. It was contended that although a Muslim can make oral gift, yet for a valid oral gift by a Muslim, three conditions have to be satisfied, R. S. A. No. 1121 of 2010 3 namely :- (i) Declaration of gift by the donor; (ii) Acceptance of the gift by the donee; and (iii) Delivery of possession of subject matter of gift to the donee. It was contended that in the instant case, it is not proved that there was declaration of gift by the donor Rashid and therefore, the alleged gift was not valid. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rattan Lal Bora and others vs. Mohd. Nabiuddin reported as AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh 344. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no force therein. As noticed at the outset, pleadings of the suit, in which consent judgment and decree dated 27.09.1997 were passed, were not placed on the record. In the absence thereof, it cannot be said that conditions necessary for valid oral gift by a Muslim, as stated herein above, were not satisfied in the instant case. In addition thereto, perusal of judgment Ex.P-1 would reveal that the defendants no.3 to 8 herein, who filed the said suit, pleaded that they were owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of oral gift made by Rashid, who was defendant in the said suit. Rashid admitted this claim by filing written statement in that suit and also by making statement in the Court. It is, therefore, manifest that Rashid had made valid declaration of oral gift in favour of defendants no.3 to 8 herein and had also delivered possession of the suit land to them and the gift had been accepted by defendants no.3 to 8/donees. In the case of Rattan Lal Bora (supra), the donor father made statement in Court that he made declaration of the gift when nobody was present. In this context, it was held in that case, that the said unilateral declaration made in the presence of nobody was not a valid declaration of gift. In the instant case, however, pleadings of the plaint instituted by defendants no.3 to 8 herein in the previous suit, could depict R. S. A. No. 1121 of 2010 4 regarding essential ingredients of the oral gift claimed by them, but the said pleadings have not been produced in evidence. Moreover, in previous suit, Rashid admitted in his written statement as well as by making statement in the Court that he had made oral gift in favour of the defendants no.3 to 8 herein. So, in the instant case, all the essential ingredients of valid oral gift by a Muslim, stated herein above, stand proved. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that Rashid was aged about 105 years. However, mere old age of Rashid would not invalidate the judgment and decree suffered by him. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that Rashid made false plea in the previous suit that he had only two sons, although Rashid had five sons. However, this circumstance does not show any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of defendants no.3 to 8 herein, in whose favour judgment and decree dated 27.09.1997 were passed. On the other hand, in statement Ex.P-3 made in the previous suit by Rashid, he categorically deposed that he had already gifted the suit land to his grandsons i.e. defendants no.3 to 8 herein and had also delivered possession thereof to them. This statement Ex.P-3 made by Rashid in the previous suit depicts that all essential requirements of oral gift by a Muslim are satisfied. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Both the courts below have taken proper view of the evidence on record. The concurrent finding by the courts below does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. April 01, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE