Case: Maqbool Alam Khan Vs. Mst. Khodaija &amp; Ors

1. Shaik Ahmad Ali was the holder of a tenure recorded in Khewat No. 4, tauzi No. 3309, Mouza Babhnaul comprising an area of 83.82 acres under the Maharaja of Dumraon. He died in 1910 leaving as his heirs, his mother Waziran, his second wife Elahijan, three sons Amanat, Ashghar and Ashraf and two daughters born of Elahijan, and two sons Hamid and Mahmud and four daughters born of his first wife Nabiban. Though all the heirs of Shaik Ahmad ali were co-sharers of the tenure, the names of Hamid and Mahmud only were recorded as the tenure-holders in the record of rights published in 1911. The Maharaja 13 of 1915 against Hamid and Mahmud only and obtained a decree for rent. The other co-sharers of the tenure including Amanat were not parties to the suit. Amanat died in 1924. Before and after 1924 there were several litigations concerning the rights of the co-sharers in the tenure. Eventually, under a compromise, Najma the wife of Amanat got 2 annans 8 pies 10 krant share in the teneure. Subsequently the Maharaja of Dumraon put the decree in Rent Suit No. 13 of 1915 into execution, and Latafat, son of Ashgar by his first wife Safidan, purchased the tenure at the execution sale. In October 1928, Latafat obtained possession of the tenure though Court. In May 1939, Najma instituted Title Suit No. 127 of 1939 against Latafat, the Maharaja of Dumraon and others asking for a declaration that her share in the tenure was not affected by the sale and for partition and possession of her share and mesne profits. During the pendency of this suit, the Maharaja of Dumraon instituted Rent Suit No. 1077 of 1939 against Latafat, obtained a decree for rent and put the decree into execution. At the execution sale in November 1940, Khodaija, the second wife of Ashgar, purchased the tenure. Thereupon, Khodaija was impleaded as a party in Title Suit No. 127 of of 1939. On 9-7-1942, a decree declaring the title of Najma to her share in the tenure and a preliminary decree for partition were passed in that suit. On 9-8-1942, Khodaija obtained delivery of possession of the tenure through Court on the basis of her purchase in November 1940. On 26-2-1943, Najma died. On 10-4-1943, the appellant filed a petition in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939 praying for substitution in place of Najma on the ground that before her death Najma had made an oral gift of her share to him. On 21-4-1943, the Court passed an order substituting the appellant as plaintiff in the suit in place of Najma. On 14-6-1943, a final decree was passed in the suit. The appellant was allotted 19.54 acres of land out of the tenure. On 25-6-1943, the appellant obtained possession of the land dispossessing Khodaija. Thereafter, Khodaija instituted Title Suit No. 126 of 1944 against the appellant and others for a declaration that the decrees passed in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939 were fraudulently obtained and were not binding upon her. The trial Court dismissed the suit, on appeal, the first appellate Court decreed the suit and a second appeal was disposed of by a compromise in these terms:"1. That the name of the plaintiff No. 1 (that is Khodaija) from the categor5y of defendants in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939 shall be expunged2. That the decree (in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939) will stand in other respects3. That the suit (that is, Title Suit No. 126 of 1944) will stand dismissed."In 1948, Khodaija applied for restitution of the land under S. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif allowed the application; on appeal, the first Appellate court dismissed it; and on second appeal, the High Court passed an order on 24-1-1949 declaring that Khodaija was entitled to restitution and remanded the case to the Munsif. On 28-6-1949, the Munsif directed restitution of 19.54 acres of land to Khodaija. On 1-7-1949, Khodaija obtained possession of the land through Court2. Thereafter, the appellant instituted the present suit against Khodaija and others praying for a declaration of his title to the aforesaid land. His case is that the suits instituted by the Maharaja of Dumraon were not rent suits and the sales in execution of those decrees were not rent sales, inasmuch as all the sharers of the tenure were not impleaded as parties to those suits, the share of Najma in the tenure now represented by the suit land was not affected by the sales, and by an oral gift she gave the land to the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit. On first appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit. The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
4. The appellant must, therefore, establish his title to the land. He claims that after the preliminary decree Najma orally gave him her entire movable and immovable properties including the tenure, and she died after making over possession of the same. She died leaving her father and mother as her heirs. Both her parents filed petitions in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939 supporting the oral gift of the suit land. This circumstance favours the case of oral gift. The appellant examined himself as a witness in this case. He said that the gift was made on 10-2-1943 in the presence of his parents. His mother was alive, but she was not examined as a witness. The date of the gift was not mentioned in the plaint or in any earlier document; it was disclosed for the first time in the witness-box, and even then, it was not made clear how he remembered the date in the absence of any record. In the petition filed by him on 10-4-1948 in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939 he had made a different case and had stated that the gift was made a few months before her death on 26-2-1943. His case now is that Najma made a gift of her entire movable and immovable properties. This case was not made in the petitions filed in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939. The particulars of the other properties are not disclosed, nor is it shown that he ever took possession of those properties. In the plaint, he made the case that Najma died after making over possession of the tenure to him. This statement is untrue, because Najma had been dispossessed of the tenure in August 1942 and was not in possession of it at the time of the alleged gift. Considering all the circumstances, the High Court held, and, in our opinion, rightly that the appellant failed to prove the alleged oral gift5. We also think that the alleged gift was invalid. In February 1943, Khodaija was in possession of the tenure claiming it adversely to Najma. After the alleged gift, Najma neither gave possession of the property, nor did anything to put it within the power of the appellant to obtain possession. The three pillars of a valid gift under the Mahomedan law are declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession7. Previously, the rule of law was thought to be so strict that it was said that land in the possession of a usurper (or wrongdore) or of a lessee or a mortgagee cannot be given away, see Dorrul Mokhtar, Book on Gift, p. 635 cited in Mullick Abdool Guffoor v. Muleka, (1884) ILR 10 Cal 1112   at p. 1123.But the view now prevails that there can be a valid gift of property in the possession of a lessee or a mortgagee and a gift may be sufficiently made by delivering constructive possession of the property to the donee. Some authorities still take the view that a property in the possession of a usurper cannot be given away, but this view appears to us to be too rigid. The donor may lawfully make a gift of a property in the possession of a trespasser. Such a gift is valid, provided the donor either obtains and gives possession of the property to the donee or does all that he can to put it within the power of the donee to obtain possession8. But a gift of a property in the possession of a trespasser is not established by mere declaration of the donor and acceptance by the donee. To validate the gift, there must also be either delivery of possession or failing such delivery, some overt act by the donor to put it within the power of the donee to obtain possession. If, apart from making a declaration, the donor does nothing else, the gift is invalidThe precedent covers the present case. Najma did nothing after the alleged declaration. She did not even file a petition in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939 mentioning the gift and asking for the substitution of the appellant in her place. Had she filed such a petition and submitted to an order of substitution, she would have placed it within the power of the appellant to obtain possession of the property; but she did nothing. Nor did the appellant obtain possession of the property during her lifetime with her consent. The gift is, therefore, invalid9. It follows that the appellant has no title to the suit property and the High Court rightly dismissed the suit. During the pendency of this appeal, one Babulal, an heir of a co-lessee from Khodaija in respect of plot No. 1400, died, and the appeal has abated against him.