IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.123 of 2009 ZAINAB KHATOON, W/o late Kitab Mia, R/o village Chorauli, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Siwan -----Plaintiff … Appellant .. Appellant Versus 1. HAKIM MIAN 2. Daroga Mian both sons of late Bhola Mian 3. Hasina Khatoon 4. Nebane Khatoon 5. Amnoor Khatoon 6. Farida Khatoon All D/o late Bhola Mian 7. Hadish Mian, S/o late Pan Mian 8. Bibi Fatima, W/o late Amin Mian All resident of village Chorauli, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Siwan … Defendant 1st Set … Respondent 1st Set .. Respondent 1st Set 9. Bibi Mahfooz, W/o late Shahid Mian, R/o Village Tikampur, P.S. Taraiya, District Saran … Defendant 2nd set .. Respondent 2nd set ----------- For the appellant : M/s Arun Kumar Prasad, Kapildeo Singh I and Vijay Kumar, Advocates 4 07.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff - appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and the decree dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Siwan in Title Appeal No. 18 of 1999 affirming the judgment and the decree dated 5.2.1999 passed by the Addl. Munsif, Siwan in Title Suit No. 252 of 1992, has preferred this appeal. 2 Plaintiff has brought the Title Suit No. 252 of 1992 for declaration that the sale-deed dated 13.10.1984 executed by Bibi Matizan in favour of Bhola Mian and others is invalid, void, inoperative and without jurisdiction and also without payment of consideration money. The plaintiff has claimed that certain lands were given to him in gift by Bibi Tabijan by executing a deed of gift on 13.10.1952. It has been claimed by the plaintiff that Bibi Tabijan, being the wife of Sahabjan Mian, got the land orally gifted from her husband. Part of the same was sold to other persons. However, part of the property was gifted, as has been mentioned above, in favour of the plaintiff - appellant. Further case of the plaintiff is that Bibi Matizan is not the daughter of aforesaid Sahabjan Mian from his first wife, rather she is a stranger. Thus, she did not have any capacity to execute a sale-deed in favour of Bhola Mian and others. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that Bibi Matizan is the daughter of late Sahabjan Mian through his first wife; whereas the 3 Bibi Tabijan was his second wife and after the death of her father Bibi Tabijan being the second wife is only entitled for two annas share and rest of properties will go his daughter , namely, Bibi Matizan. Thus, she was fully competent to execute the sale- deed concerned. Further, it has been held that though in Mohammadan law oral gift is possible but once it has been executed in consideration of dower debt then such disposition has to be by a registered deed as the same looses colour of gift. That not being the situation coupled with the fact that Bibi Tabijan was also not found in the possession, the story of oral gift has been disbelieved by both the courts below. Once the oral gift in favour of Bibi Tabijan by her husband could not be proved the subsequent sale and transaction by way of gift in favour of the original plaintiff Kitab Mian by aforesaid Bibi Tabijan also becomes invalid and inoperative. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the evidence led on behalf of the appellant has not been considered by the courts below in proper perspective. However, he has not been 4 able to point out any deficiency in the findings recorded by the courts below. He could not point out any error in the finding recorded by the courts below regarding the fact that the oral gift for liquidating dower debt was not permissible . Thus, the decisions of the courts below are concluded by concurrent findings of fact and learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any error leading to any substantial question of law. As a result, I do not find any merit in this appeal, and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)