IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.50 of 2010 Syed Irshad Hussain Versus Mir Jauhar Raja & Ors. ----------- 04. 22.11.2011 Heard Mr.Jitendra Prasad Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The core issue in the suit was the validity of the gift deed dated 05.02.1986 said to have been executed by Mir Kalim in favour of the other defendants. The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be co-sharers of Mir Kalim have challenged the said gift deed and further claimed partition of the suit property claiming their own share in it. The executant Mir Kalim has been impleaded as defendant no.1 in the suit. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that Mir Kalim has no title over the property. It appears from the impugned judgments that Mir Kalim had accepted the execution of the gift deed in question in favour of the defendant 2nd Set by filing the written statement in the suit. Mir Kalim in his written statement had also averred that his donees had accepted the gift and 2 he had delivered possession of the suit property to the donees who had come in possession over the same. After considering the evidence on record, pleadings as well as submissions of the parties both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the gift deed dated 05.02.86 is a valid and legal document. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that all the three ingredients required by Mohammedan law for a valid gift have not been established to exist in the present case. It has also been urged that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and have come to erroneous conclusions. From the perusal of the impugned judgments and the consideration of the submissions by the learned counsel, it is clear that the basic issue was the validity of the gift deed and the donor Mir Kalim who was party in the suit had himself accepted to have executed the gift deed and the possession of the donees over the suit properties. Moreover, both the courts below have considered other evidence on record also and have come to concurrent finding of fact that the deed of gift is a 3 valid and legal document. There is no scope for reappraisal of the evidence in the second appeal. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)