1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO.754/2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1084/2003 Church of Our Lady of Nazareth. ..Appellant -VERSUS- Union of India and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.V.B.Naik, Advocate i/b Mr.Shivraj Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.M.S.Bhate, Advocate for the respondents. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 02nd MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by unsuccessful plaintiff who is appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff' s suit for declaration in regard to it' s ownership has been dismissed by the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court as well dismissed the appeal, hence, the present Second Appeal. 2. The appellant/plaintiff Trust claims to have come in possession of the land in question, which is admeasuring 11 Hectors, 2 by virtue of the oral gift from one Lazrus Gomes in the year 1930. According to the appellant, Lazrus Gomes has gifted the said property orally in favour of the appellant, thus, the title stood vested in the appellant on account of the said donation. Both the Courts below have held that there cannot be transfer of title in regard to immovable property by way of oral gift as the same is impermissible in law. So while concluding this issue besides other issues, the Courts below have concurrently found that the appellant has failed to establish the title to the suit property and dismissed the suit for declaration in that regard. 3. The record reveals that the proceedings came to be initiated by the appellant on account of notice being issued by the Deputy Salt Commissioner in the year 1983 asserting the title to the property in the Union of India and calling upon the appellant to obtain the licence for manufacturing the salt and it' s renewal on the conditions to be laid down by the Union of India. Not being desirous of operating the Unit as a lincencee and asserting the ownership, the suit in question was filed by the appellant. 4. At this juncture it would not be out of place to mention here that the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India on the instructions from the officer who is present in the Court, has stated that in April-2001 the Union of India has taken possession of the land from the appellant and thereafter, during pendency of the appeal, the tenders were issued and the same were opened on 30.03.2007 and 3 under an agreement dated 02.04.2007 the lands are given to the successful bidder for a period of five years and the lease deeds are also stated to have been registered. 5. Be that as it may, nothing turns on grant of lease as the question involved in the present appeal is the title of the immovable property purportedly transferred on account of the oral gift. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to support the submission that the title could be vested in the appellant under the oral gift. There cannot be transfer of ownership except under a document in writing to be registered in a manner indicated under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. In this view of the matter, there does not arise any substantial question of law for adjudication and concurring with the findings of the Courts below, the appeal stands dismissed summarily. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. JUDGE