FA 20/1993 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The appellants seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.10.1992, passed by the learned District Judge, Nalbari in TS No. 39/19986 dismissing their suit instituted as plaintiffs. I have heard Mr. AC Sharma, Senior Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents/defendants, though the names of their learned counsel are shown in the cause list. Having regard to the year of regist ration of the present appeal, and in absence of any prayer for adjournment made, the same is heard for final disposal. The pleaded version of the appellants/plaintiffs’, in short, is that they are th e owners of the suit land described in Schedule to the plaint, the same having b een gifted to them by their mother Kamala Devi, defendant No. 10, vide a sale de ed dated 27.01.1982 and registered on 19.06.1982. They also claimed delivery of possession of the suit land pursuant to the gift conveyed to them. They alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 following the execution of the gift deed, on 01.0 4.1982 trespassed upon the suit land and being confronted, they (defendants) dis closed that the same (suit land) had been gifted to them by the heirs of the ori ginal owner Adyanath Sarma (father of the appellants/plaintiffs claimed donor, K amala Devi). On that plea, the defendant also refused to vacate the suit land. A decree was sought for, declaring the appellants/plaintiffs right, title and int erest in the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession thereof. The defendants in their written statement reiterated the above plea and elaborat ed the same by contending that the gift claimed by them was conveyed by gift dee d No. 1526, dated 27.02.1982. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties sever al issues were framed, of which issue No. 4, 5 & 6 as hereinbelow are relevant: Issue No.4: Whether the gift averred by plaintiff is genuine and obtained posses sion Issue No.5: Whether plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants as alleged Issue No.6: Whether the suit land gifted to the defendants. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence including the respective gift deeds. Whereas, the appellants/plaintiffs proved their document to be deed No.2574, dated 19.06.1982 as Ext. 1, the contesting respondents/defendants marke d their aforementioned deed i.e. No. 1526, dated 27.02.1982, as Ext. Ka. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and t he evidence on record dismissed the suit on the ground that having regard to the dates of execution and the registration of the two deeds, the conveyance in fav our of the appellants/plaintiffs did not transfer any title in them in the suit land. On an analysis of the oral evidence of the parties, in particular, it was further held that the appellants/plaintiffs had failed to prove delivery of poss ession of the suit land following the execution of their deed of gift as claimed by them. The learned Court also returned a finding that the appellants/plaintif fs had failed to prove that they had been dispossessed of the suit land on 01.04 .1982 as alleged. Mr. Sharma has urged that the appellants/plaintiffs’ deed of gift having been ex ecuted on a date earlier in point of time to the one of the document of the cont esting respondents/defendants, the learned trial Court erred in law in dismissin g the suit. According to the learned Senior counsel, the appellants/plaintiffs’ deed of gift having been executed earlier, the conveyance, in law, was to take e ffect from that date, notwithstanding the fact that the registration of the rela ted deed was effected subsequent thereto. The learned Senior counsel, however, d id not assail the findings qua the delivery of possession of the suit land and t he alleged dispossession of the appellants/plaintiffs by the contesting responde nts/defendants on 01.04.1982. The pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs have been duly noted. A perusal of the two deeds, i.e. Ext. 1 and Ext. Ka leaves no manner of doubt that the for mer was executed on 27.01.1982 and the latter on 27.02.1982. Ext. 1, however, wa s registered on 19.06.1982. Be that as it may, a close scrutiny of the oral testimony of record leaves no sc ope to fault the conclusion of the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs/appel lants have failed to prove delivery of possession of the suit land to them follo wing the gift thereof by Kamala Devi as claimed. The appellants/plaintiffs also did not convincingly prove the imputation that they had been dispossessed from t he suit land by the contesting appellants/defendants on 01.04.1982. A bare perusal of section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (for short h ereafter referred to as the Act) spells out acceptance of the gift to be an esse ntial feature for the validity thereof. Ext. 1, per se, does not contain any not e of acceptance of the gift said to be carried thereby. PW 4, Sri Keshab Chandra Bhagawati, the father of the appellants/plaintiffs in his evidence admitted abs ence of any mention of acceptance of the gift in the deed, Ext. 1. According to him, however, acceptance of delivery of possession signified the same. It is, in this context that the factum of delivery of possession of the conveyed land by the donor to the donees assumes importance. Noticeably, the donor, Kamala Devi was one of the three daughters of Adyanath Sa rma a joint owner of the suit land with his brother. The evidence of DW 1, Shri Arabinda Sarma discloses that the land jointly belonged to his father, Siddinath Sarma and his brothers including Adyanath Sarma (since deceased). He claimed th at land measuring 7 bighas, including the suit land had been gifted to the conte sting defendants by the three daughters of Adyanath Sarma, namely, Kamala Devi a nd Indira Chakraborty and Aruna Devi by a registered deed dated 27.02.1982. He a lso claimed to be in possession of the gifted land pursuant thereto. Though, PW 4, Shri Keshab Chandra Bhagawati referred to a family settlement on the basis of an unregistered deed, neither the witnesses of the appellants/plaintiffs elabor ated further on that to establish the same nor that deed was produced. PW 4, how ever, tried to explain this omission by stating that the said deed had got stole n meanwhile. As alluded hereinabove, if the acceptance of the gift is to be inferred from the delivery of possession of suit land, the evidence with regard thereto is of con siderable import. On an analysis of the testimony of the witnesses of the appell ants/plaintiffs, in the face of the denial made by the contesting defendants/res pondents, the conclusion to this effect recorded by the learned trial Court cann ot be denounced to be in defiance of logic or irrational. As admittedly, Kamala Devi, the donor of the appellants/plaintiffs was one of the owners of the land s aid to have been gifted, in absence of a conclusive proof of an amicable settlem ent/partition of the land of the original owners conferring absolute right, titl e and interest in the land conveyed, the transaction in favour of the appellants /plaintiffs does not inspire confidence. The determination made by the learned t rial Court qua the imputation of dispossession of the appellants/plaintiffs also is unassailable, having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties. In the above view of the matter, though on a conjoint reading of section 122/123 of the Act and section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, it would be permissibl e to hold that the gift deed executed on 27.01.1982, but registered on 19.06.198 2 ought to be assigned predominance over Ext. Ka, bearing in mind the essentiali ties of a valid gift as embodied in section 122 of the Act as well as the state of evidence on record, the ultimate conclusion recorded in the impugned judgment and order cannot be faulted with. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and order, this Court is satisfied that th e learned trial Court has appropriately examined the pleadings and the evidence on record in the right perspective and the conclusions arrived by it, cannot be repudiated as opposed to the materials on record or illogical or irrational warr anting interference of this Court. The appeal thus lacks in merit, which is, the refore, dismissed. No costs.