REPORTABLE                          

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 1714 OF 2005

Hafeeza Bibi & Ors. …. Appellants

Versus

Shaikh Farid (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.          ….Respondents  

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.  

This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment  

of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  dated  September  13,  2004  

whereby the Single Judge of that Court set aside the judgment and  

decree dated April  27,  1988 passed by the Principal,  Subordinate  

Judge,  Vishakhapatnam and  remitted  the  matter  back  to  the  trial  

1

court  for  the  purpose  of  passing  a  preliminary  decree  after  

determining the shares to which each party would be entitled.  

2. Shaik Dawood had three sons;  Shaik Farid,   Mehboob  

Subhani  and  Mohammed  Yakub.  He  also  had  five  daughters;  

Sappoora Bibi,  Khairunnisa Begum, Noorajahan Begum,  Rabia Bibi  

and  Alima  Bibi.  All  the  five  daughters  were  married.  His  wife  

predeceased him. Shaik Dawood retired as Reserve Head Constable.  

He was also a Unani Medical Practitioner.   

3. Shaik  Farid,  Sappoora  Bibi,  Khairunnisa  Begum,  

Noorajahan Begum and Mohd. Iqbal (son of Alima Bibi) – hereinafter  

referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ – filed a suit for partition against  Mehboob  

Subhani, Mohammed Yakub and  Rabia Bibi (hereinafter referred to  

as ‘defendant 1’,  ‘defendant  2’  and ‘defendant  3’  respectively).  The  

son and daughters of Syed Ali, who was brother of  Shaik Dawood,  

were  impleaded  as  other  defendants  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  

‘defendants 4 to 7’).

4. The  parties  are  governed  by  Sunni  Law.  The  plaintiffs  

averred  in the plaint that Shaik Dawood died intestate on December  

19, 1968 and the plaintiffs and defendants  1 to 3 became entitled to  

‘A’ schedule properties and half share in ‘B’ schedule properties. The  

2

plaintiffs stated that the defendants 4 to 7 are entitled to other half  

share in ‘B’ schedule properties.

5. Mohammed Yakub — defendant  2 — contested the suit  

for partition. He set up the defence that Shaik Dawood  executed hiba  

(gift  deed)  on  February  5,  1968  and  gifted  his  properties   to  him.  

Shaik Dawood put him in possession of the hiba properties on  that  

day itself.   The hiba became complete  and the plaintiffs  were fully  

aware of  that  fact.  The defendant   2  in his written statement  also  

referred to a previous suit  for  partition filed by some of  the parties  

which was dismissed in default.

6. Some  of  the  original  parties   have  died  during  the  

pendency of the suit. Their legal representatives have been brought  

on record.   

7. The trial court framed four issues.  The issue  relevant for  

the purpose of the present appeal is issue no.2 which is to the effect  

whether hiba dated February 5, 1968 is true, valid and binding on the  

plaintiffs. The trial court, after recording the evidence and on hearing  

the parties,  answered issue no. 2 in the affirmative and,   held that  

plaintiffs  were  not  entitled  to  the  shares  claimed  in  the  plaint.  

3

Consequently, vide judgment and decree dated April 27, 1988, the trial  

court dismissed the plaintiffs’  suit.  

8. The plaintiffs challenged the judgment and decree of the  

trial  court  before  the  High Court.   Inter  alia,  one of  the  arguments  

raised  before the High Court on behalf of the appellants was that the  

gift dated February 5, 1968 being  in writing was compulsorily required  

to be registered and stamped and in absence thereof, the gift deed  

could  not  be  accepted  or  relied  upon  for  any  purpose  and  such  

unregistered gift deed would not confer any title upon the defendant 2.  

The High Court  was persuaded by the argument  and held that  the  

unregistered gift deed would not pass any title to the defendant 2 as  

pleaded  by  him.  The  High  Court,  as  indicated  above,  allowed the  

appeal; set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and sent  

the matter back to that court for the purposes of passing a preliminary  

decree.

9. The  present  appellants  are  legal  heirs  of  the  deceased  

defendant 2.

10. As to whether or not the High Court is  right in its view that  

the unregistered gift deed dated February 5, 1968 is not a valid gift  

4

and  conveyed  no  title  to  the  defendant  2  is  the  question  for  

determination in  this appeal.  

11. There is divergence of opinion amongst High Courts on the  

question presented before us.  

12. The Privy Council in the case of Mohammad Abdul Ghani  

(since deceased) & Anr.v.  Fakhr Jahan Begam & Ors.1  referred to  

‘Mohammadan Law’; by Syed Ameer Ali  and approved the statement  

made therein that three conditions  are necessary for a valid gift by a  

Muslim: (a) manifestation of the wish to give on the part of the donor;  

(b) the acceptance of the donee, either impliedly or expressly; (c) the  

taking  of possession of the subject-matter of the gift by the donee,  

either actually or constructively.

13. In  Mahboob Sahab v.  Syed Ismail and others2, this Court  

referred to the Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla,  19th Edition  

and in paragraph 5 (pp. 696-697) noticed the legal position, in relation  

to a gift by Muslim incorporated therein, thus :

“5.  Under  Section  147  of  the  Principles  of  Mahomedan  Law by  Mulla,  19th  Edn.,  edited  by  Chief  Justice  M.  Hidayatullah, envisages that writing is not essential to the  validity  of  a  gift  either  of  moveable  or  of  immovable  property.  Section  148  requires  that  it  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  a  gift  that  the  donor  should  divest  himself  

1  1922 (49) IA 195 2 (1995) 3 SCC 693

5

completely of all ownership and dominion over the subject  of  the  gift.  Under  Section  149,  three  essentials  to  the  validity of the gift should be, (i) a declaration of gift by the  donor, (ii) acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or  on behalf of the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession of  the  subject  of  the  gift  by  the  donor  to  the  donee  as  mentioned in Section 150. If these conditions are complied  with, the gift is complete. Section 150 specifically mentions  that for a valid gift there should be delivery of possession of  the subject of the gift and taking of possession of the gift by  the donee, actually or constructively. Then only the gift is  complete. Section 152 envisages that where the donor is in  possession,  a  gift  of  immovable  property  of  which  the  donor is in actual possession is not complete unless the  donor  physically  departs  from  the  premises  with  all  his  goods  and  chattels,  and  the  donee  formally  enters  into  possession. It would, thus, be clear that though gift by a  Mohammedan  is  not  required  to  be  in  writing  and  consequently need not be registered under the Registration  Act; for a gift to be complete, there should be a declaration  of the gift by the donor; acceptance of the gift, expressed  or implied, by or on behalf  of the donee, and delivery of  possession of the property, the subject-matter of the gift by  the donor to the donee. The donee should take delivery of  the  possession  of  that  property  either  actually  or  constructively. On proof of these essential conditions, the  gift  becomes  complete  and  valid.  In  case  of  immovable  property  in  the  possession  of  the  donor,  he  should  completely divest  himself  physically of  the subject  of  the  gift…….”  

14. Section  123  of  the  Transfer  of  Property  Act,  1882  (for  

short,  ‘T.P. Act’) lays down the manner in which gift of immoveable  

property may be effected. It reads thus :

“S.123.  Transfer  how  effected.  —  For  the  purpose  of  making a gift of immoveable property, the transfer must be  effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf  of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.

6

For  the  purpose  of  making  a  gift  of  moveable  property,  the  transfer  may  be  effected  either  by  a  registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.

Such  delivery  may  be  made  in  the  same  way  as  goods sold may be delivered.”

15. However, an exception is carved out in Section 129 of the  

T.P.  Act  with  regard  to  the  gifts  by  a  Mohammadan.  It  reads  as  

follows:  

“S.129.  Saving  of  donations  mortis  causa and  Muhammadan Law.  — Nothing in  this  Chapter  relates  to  gifts of moveable property made in contemplation of death,  or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Muhammadan law.”

16. At  this  stage,  we  may  also  refer  to  Section  17  of  the  

Registration Act, 1908  which makes registration of certain documents  

compulsory.  Section  17  of  the  Registration  Act,  to  the  extent  it  is  

necessary, reads as follows :

“S.17.  Documents of which registration is compulsory. —(1)  The  following  documents  shall  be  registered,  if  the  property to which they relate is situate in a district in which,  and  if  they  have  been  executed  on or  after  the  date  on  which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act,  1866,  or  the  Indian  Registration  Act,  1871,  or  the  Indian  Registration  Act,  1877,   or  this  Act  came or  comes  into  force, namely:— (a) instruments of gift of immovable property;

(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;

7

(d)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ;

(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .”

17. Section 49 of the Registration Act deals with the effect of  

non-registration of documents required to be registered.  It reads thus:  

“S.49.  Effect  of  non-  registration  of  documents  required to be registered.-  No document required by  section  17   or  by  any  provision  of  the  Transfer  of  Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),  to be registered shall—

(a)  affect any immovable property comprised therein or  

(b) confer any power to adopt, or  

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting  such property  or  conferring  such power,  unless  it  has  been registered:  

Provided  that  an  unregistered  document  affecting  immovable  property  and  required  by  this  Act  or  the  Transfer  of  Property  Act,  1882  (4  of  1882  ),  to  be  registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a  suit  for  specific  performance  under  Chapter  II  of  the  Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877 ), or as evidence of  any collateral transaction not required to be effected by  registered instrument.”  

18. Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act leaves no manner  

of  doubt  that  an instrument  of  gift  of  immoveable property  requires  

registration irrespective of the value of the property. The question is  

about its applicability to a written gift executed by a Mohammadan in  

8

the light of Section 129 of the T.P. Act and the rule of Mohammadan  

Law relating to gifts.  

19. In the case of  Nasib Ali v.  Wajed Ali3,  the contention was  

raised before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that the  

deed of gift,  not being registered under the Registration Act,  is  not  

admissible in evidence. The Calcutta High Court held that a deed of  

gift  by  a  Mohammadan  is  not  an  instrument  effecting,  creating  or  

making the gift but a mere piece of evidence. This is what the High  

Court said :

“………The position under the Mahomedan Law is  this  :  that a gift in order to be valid must be made in accordance  with the forms stated above; and even if it is evidenced by  writing, unless all the essential forms are observed, it is not  valid  according  to  law.  That  being  so,  a  deed  of  gift  executed by a Mahomedan is not the instrument effecting,  creating or making the gift but a mere piece of evidence. It  may so happen after a lapse of time that the evidence of  the  observance  of  the  above  forms  might  not  be  forthcoming, so it is sometimes thought prudent; to reduce  the fact that a gift has been made into writing. Such writing  is not a document of title but is a piece of evidence.

3.  The  law  with  regard  to  the  gift  being  complete  by  declaration and delivery of possession is so clear that in a  case  before  their  Lordships  of  the  Judicial  Committee  Kamarunnissa Bibi v. Hussaini Bibi [1880] 3 All. 266, where  a gift was said to have been made in lieu of dower, their  Lordships  held  that  the  requisite  forms  having  been  observed it  was  not  necessary to  enquire  whether  there  was any consideration for the gift or whether there was any  dower due. The case of  Karam Ilahi v. Sharfuddin [1916]  

3 AIR 1927 Cal 197

9

38 All. 212 is similar in principle to the present case. There  also a deed relating to the gift was executed. The learned  Judge held that if the gift was valid under the Mahomedan  Law it was none the less valid because there was a deed  of  gift  which,  owing  to  some  defect,  was  invalid  under  Section 123, Transfer  of  Property  Act,  and could not  be  used in evidence.

4. The next, question that calls for consideration is whether  a document like the present one executed by a Mahomedan  donor after he made a gift to show that he had made it in  favour  of  the  donee is  compulsorily  registrable  under  the  Registration Act. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act  an instrument of gift must be registered. By the expression  'instrument  of  gift  of  immovable property'  I  understand an  instrument or deed which creates, makes or completes the  gift, thereby transferring the ownership of the property from  the executant to the person in whose favour it is executed.  In  order  to  affect  the  immovable  property,  the  document  must be a document of transfer; and if it is a document of  transfer  it  must  be registered under  the provisions of  the  Registration Act.

5.  The  present  document  does  not  affect  immovable  property. It does not transfer the immovable property from  the donor to the donee. It only affords evidence of the fact  that  the  donor  has  observed  the  formalities  under  the  Mahomedan  Law  in  making  the  gift  to  the  donee.  I  am  prepared to go so far as to hold that a document like the  present  one  is  not  compulsorily  registrable  under  the  Registration Act, or the Registration Act does not apply to a  so-called deed of gift  executed by a Mahomedan. But for  purposes of the present case it is not necessary to go so far  because  I  hold  that  this  document  is  only  a  piece  of  evidence,  and  conceding  that  it  should,  have  been  registered,  the  effect  of  its  non-registration  is  to  make  it  inadmissible  in  evidence  under  Section  49  of  the  Registration Act………”

10

20. In  Sankesula Chinna Budde Saheb v.  Raja Subbamma4,   

the Andhra Pradesh High Court, after noticing the three essentials of a  

gift under the  Mohammadan Law, held that if a gift was  reduced to  

writing,  it  required  registration   under  Section  17(1)(a)  of  the  

Registration Act. It went on to hold that even if by virtue of  Section  

129 of the T.P. Act, a deed of gift executed by  Mohammadan was  not  

required to comply with the provisions of Section 123 of the T.P. Act,  

still it had  to be registered under Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration  

Act when the gift related  to immoveable property.   

21. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case  

of Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Govt.  of Hyderabad  

v.  Smt. Tayyaba Begum5,  was called upon to decide on  a reference  

made by the Board of Revenue under Section 55 of the Hyderabad  

Stamp Act whether the document  under consideration therein  was a  

gift deed or it merely evidenced  a past transaction. The High Court  

applied the test – whether the parties regarded  the instrument to be a  

receptacle  and  appropriate  evidence  of  the  transaction;  was  it  

intended to constitute the gift or was it to serve as a record of a past  

event – and held as under :  

4 1954 2 MLJ 113 5 AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 199

11

“12. We have to examine the document in question in the  light  of  these rules.  No doubt,  there was  recitals  therein  which relate to past transaction. But that is not decisive of  the matter. What is the purpose which it was designed to  serve?  That  the  executant  did  not  treat  it  as  a  memorandum of a completed hiba is evident from some of  the  sentences.   In  the  deed,  such  as  “I  deemed  it  necessary to execute a deed also making a declaration in  favour of my son…in accordance with the Muslim law”, and  the last portion of the document. The anxiety of the donor  to free the title of the donee to the property from all doubts  and to save him from future litigation is clearly exhibited in  the last sentence.

“I  pray  that  no  one  may have  any  kind  of  doubt  regarding the ownership of  Syed Ehasan Hussain  and that if per chance any doubt at all should arise,  this deed of Ekrarnama may prove sufficient.”

This  sentence  is  expressive  of  her  intention  to  silence all doubts regarding the ownership of the property  with the aid of this document. She did not want anyone to  challenge the title of the donee to the house in question.  This  object  could  be attained only  if  it  is  regarded as a  conveyance, a document which effected the transfer by its  own force. If, on the other hand, if it is a mere record of a  past  transaction,  that  would  not  have the desired effect.  There is one circumstance which gives some indication as  to  the  intention  of  the  executant  of  the  document.  The  document  is  attested  by  two  witnesses  as  required  by  Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. No doubt, this  is not conclusive of the matter. But it  is indicative of the  desire of the executant that it should serve as evidence of  the gift and not as a memorandum of a past transaction.”

22. In Makku Rawther’s Children: Assan Ravther and others v.  

Manahapara  Charayil6,  V.R.  Krishna  Iyer,  J.  (as  His  Lordship  then  6 AIR 1972 Kerala 27

12

was) did not agree with the test applied  by the Full Bench of Andhra  

Pradesh High Court  and the reasoning given in Tayyaba Begum5 . He  

held in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report thus :

“8. I  regret  my inability  to agree with the reasoning in  these decisions. In the context of Section 17, a document  is the same as an instrument and to draw nice distinctions  between the two only serves to baffle, not to ill mine. Mulla  says:  “The  words  ‘document’  and  ‘instrument’  are  used  interchangeable in the Act”.   An instrument of gift is one  whereby  a  gift  is  made.  Where in  law a  gift  cannot  be  effected  by  a  registered  deed as  such,  it  cannot  be  an  instrument  of  gift.  The  legal  position  is  well-settled.  A  Muslim gift  may be valid even without  a registered deed  and  may  be  invalid  even  with  a  registered  deed.  Registration  being  irrelevant  to  its  legal  force,  a  deed  setting out Muslim gift cannot be regarded as constitutive  of the gift and is not compulsorily registerable.”

9. Against this argument counsel invoked the authority of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Full  Bench.  One  may  respect  the  ruling but still reiect the reasoning. The Calcutta Bench in  AIR 1927 Cal 197 has discussed the issue from the angle I  have presented. The logic of the law matters more than the  judicial  numbers  behind  a  view.  The  Calcutta  Bench  argued:

"The essentials of a gift under the Mahomedan law  are .....  A simple gift can only be made by going  through  the  above  formalities  and  no  written  instrument  is  required.  In  fact  no  writing  is  necessary to validate a gift; and if a gift is made by  a written instrument without delivery of possession,  it is invalid in law ..... That being so, a deed of gift  executed by a Mahomedan is not the instrument  effecting,  creating or  making the gift  but  a mere  piece  of  evidence  .....  Under  Section  17  of  the  Registration  Act  an  instrument  of  gift  must  be  

13

registered. By the expression 'instrument of gift of  immovable property' I understand an instrument or  deed which creates, makes or completes the gift  thereby transferring the ownership of the property  .....  The  present  document  does  not  affect  immovable  property.  It  does  not  transfer  an  immovable property from the donor to the donee  which  only  affords  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the  donor  has  observed  the  formalities  under  the  Mahomedan  law  in  making  the  gift  .....  I  am  prepared to go so far as to hold that a document  like the present one is not compulsorily registrable  under the Registration Act, or the Registration Act  does not apply to a so-called deed of gift executed  by a Mahomedan."

These observations of Suhrawardy, J. have my respectful  concurrence. So confining myself to this contention for the  nonce,  I  am inclined  to  hold  that  Ext.  B1  is  admissible  notwithstanding Ss. 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration  Act. This conclusion, however, is little premature if I may  anticipate my opinion on the operation of Section 129 of the  Transfer of Property Act expressed later in this judgment.  Indeed, in the light of my interpretation of Section 129, Ext.  B1 needs to be registered. For the present I indicate my  conclusion, if  the law of gifts for Muslims were not to be  governed by Section 129.”

23. The  Full  Bench  of  Jammu  and  Kashmir  High  Court  in  

Ghulam  Ahmad  Sofi v.  Mohd.  Sidiq  Dareel  and  others7  had  an  

occasion  to consider the question whether in view of the provisions of  

Sections  123  and  129  of  the  T.P.  Act,  the  rule  of  gifts  in  

Mohammadan Law  stands superseded; and whether it is necessary  

that there  should be a registered instrument as required by Sections  

7 AIR 1974 Jammu & Kashmir 59

14

123 and 138 of the T.P. Act in the case of gifts made  under that Law.  

The Full Bench noticed the statutory provisions and also decisions of  

different High Courts including the decision of Calcutta High Court in  

the case of Nasib Ali3. The Full Bench  held  as follows :

“14. The ratio of the above cited authorities is therefore in  favour of the proposition that an oral gift made under the  Muslim law would not be affected by Section 123 of the  Transfer of Property Act and the gift if it has otherwise all  the attributes of a valid gift under the Muslim Law would not  become invalid because there is no instrument in writing  and  registered.  Therefore  the  answer  to  the  question  formulated would be in the negative i.e. that Sections 123  and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act do not supersede  the Muslim law on matters relating to making of oral gifts,  that  it  is  not  essential  that  there  should  be a  registered  instrument  as  required  by  Sections  123  and  138  of  the  Transfer  of  Property  Act  in  such  cases.  But  if  there  is  executed  an  instrument  and  its  execution  is  contemporaneous with the making of the gift then in that  case the instrument must be registered as provided under  Section  17  of  the  Registration   Act. If, however, the making of the gift is an antecedent act  and a deed is executed afterwards as evidencing the said  transaction  that  does  not  require  registration  as  it  is  an  instrument  made  after  the  gift  is  made  and  does  not  therefore  create,  make  or  complete  the  gift  thereby  transferring  the  ownership  of  the  property  from  the  executant to the person in whose  favour it is executed.”   

24. The Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the  

case of  Chota Uddandu Sahib v.  Masthan Bi (died) and others8, was  

concerned with the question about the gift  by  Mohammadan.  The  

8 AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 271

15

Madras  High  Court  concluded  that  though  a  Mohammadan could  

create a valid gift orally, if he should reduce the same in writing, the  

gift will not be valid unless it is duly registered.

26. In  the  case  of  Md.  Hesabuddin  and  others v.  Md.  

Hesaruddin  and  others10,  the  question  with  regard  to  gift  of  

immoveable  property  written  on  ordinary  unstamped  paper  arose  

before  the  Gauhati  High  Court.  That  was  a  case  where  a  

Mohammadan mother made a gift of land in favour of her son by a gift  

deed written on ordinary unstamped paper.  The Single Judge of the  

High Court relying upon an earlier decision of that Court in  Jubeda  

Khatoon v. Moksed Ali11 held as under:

“….. But it cannot be taken as sine qua non in all cases  that wherever there is a writing about a Mahomedan gift of  immovable  property,  there  must  be  registration  thereof.  The  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case  have  to  be  taken into consideration before finding whether the writing  requires registration or not. The essential requirements, as  said  before,  to  make  a  Mahomedan  gift  valid  are  declaration  by the  donor,  acceptance by  the  donee and  delivery of possession to the donee. It was held in Jubeda  Khatoon v. Moksed Ali, AIR 1973 Gau 105 (at p. 106)-

"Under the Mahomedan Law three things are necessary for  creation  of  a  gift.  They are  (i)  declaration  of  gift  by  the  donor, (ii) acceptance of the gift express or implied by or on  behalf of the donee and (iii) delivery of possession of the  subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. The deed of  

10 AIR 1984 Gauhati 41 11 AIR 1973 Gauhati 105

17

gift is immaterial for creation of gift under the Mahomedan  Law. A gift under the Mahomedan Law is not valid if the  above mentioned essentials are not fulfilled, even if there  be a deed of gift or even a registered deed of gift. In other  words even if there be a declaration of acceptance of the  gift, there will be no valid gift under the Mahomedan Law if  there be no delivery of possession, even though there may  be registered deed of gift." In that case there was a deed of  gift which was not produced during trial. Still it was found in  that  case that had the defendants produced the deed of  gift, at best it would have proved a declaration of the gift by  the  donor  and acceptance thereof  by  the  donee.  It  was  further held that despite this the defendants would have to  lead  independent  oral  evidence  to  prove  delivery  of  possession in order to prove a valid gift. Therefore it was  found in that case that deed of gift under the Mahomedan  Law does not create a disposition of property. Relying on  this it cannot be said that whenever there is a writing with  regard to a gift executed by the donor, it must be proved as  a  basic  instrument  of  gift  before  deciding  the  gift  to  be  valid. In the instant case a mere writing in the plain paper  as  aforesaid  containing  the  declaration  of  gift  cannot  tantamount to a formal instrument of gift. Ext. A (2) has in  the circumstances of the present  case to be taken as a  form of declaration of the donor. In every case the intention  of  the donor,  the background of the alleged gift  and the  relation of the donor and the donee as well as the purpose  or motive of the gift all have to be taken into consideration.  In the present case,  it is recited in the said writings that the  3rd defendant has been maintaining and looking after the  donor  and  that  the  other  children  of  the  donor  were  neglecting her. The gift was from a mother to a son and it  was  based  on  love  and  affection  for  the  son  in  whose  favour the gift was made. Therefore, it cannot be held that  because a declaration is contained in the paper Ext. A (2)  the latter must have been registered in order to render the  gift  valid.  Admittedly,  the  3rd  defendant  has  been  possessing  the  land  and  got  his  name  mutated  in  the  revenue records with  respect  to  the land.  It  is  therefore  implied that there was acceptance on behalf of the donee  and also that the possession of the property was delivered  to the donee by the donor. It should be remembered that  unless  there  was  possession  on  behalf  of  the  3rd  

18

defendant, no mutation would have taken place with regard  to the property. It may be repeated that Ext. A (2) has to be  taken  in  the  present  case  as  a  mere  declaration  of  the  donor in presence of the witnesses who are said to have  attested the writing.”

27. The position  is  well  settled,  which  has been stated and  

restated  time  and  again,  that  the  three  essentials  of  a  gift  under  

Mohammadan Law are;  (i)  declaration  of  the  gift  by the donor;  (2)  

acceptance of the gift  by the donee and (3) delivery of possession.  

Though, the rules of  Mohammadan Law do not make writing essential  

to the validity of a gift; an oral gift fulfilling all the three essentials make  

the gift complete and irrevocable. However, the donor may record the  

transaction  of  gift  in  writing.  Asaf  A.  A.  Fyzee  in  Outlines  of  

Muhammadan  Law,  Fifth  Edition  (edited  and  revised  by  Tahir  

Mahmood) at page 182 states in this regard that writing may be of two  

kinds : (i) it may merely recite the fact of a prior gift; such a writing  

need not  be registered.  On the other hand,  (ii)  it  may itself  be the  

instrument  of  gift;  such  a  writing  in  certain  circumstances  requires  

registration.  He further says that if there is a declaration, acceptance  

and delivery of possession coupled with the formal instrument of a gift,  

it must be registered.   Conversely, the author  says that registration,  

19

however,  by  itself  without  the  other  necessary  conditions,  is  not  

sufficient.  

28. Mulla, Principles of Mahomedan Law (19th Edition), Page  

120, states the legal position in the following words :

“Under the Mahomedan law the three essential requisites  to make a gift valid : (1) declaration of the gift by the donor:  (2)  acceptance  of  the  gift  by  the  donee  expressly  or  impliedly  and  (3)  delivery  of  possession  to  and  taking  possession thereof by the donee actually or constructively.  No written document is required in such a case. Section  129  Transfer  of  Property  Act,  excludes  the  rule  of  Mahomedan law from the  purview of  Section 123 which  mandates  that  the  gift  of  immovable  property  must  be  effected by a registered instrument as stated therein. But it  cannot  be  taken  as  a  sine  qua  non  in  all  cases  that  whenever  there  is  a  writing  about  a  Mahomedan  gift  of  immovable  property  there  must  be  registration  thereof.  Whether the writing requires registration or not depends on  the facts and circumstances of each case.”

29. In  our  opinion,  merely  because  the   gift   is  reduced to  

writing by a  Mohammadan instead of it having been made orally, such  

writing does not become  a formal document  or  instrument of gift.  

When a gift  could be made by  Mohammadan orally, its nature and  

character is not changed because of it having been made by a written  

document.  What is important for a valid gift under  Mohammadan Law  

is  that  three  essential  requisites  must  be  fulfilled.  The  form  is  

immaterial. If all the three essential requisites are satisfied constituting  

20

valid gift, the transaction of gift would not be rendered invalid because  

it has been written on a plain piece of paper.  The distinction that if a  

written deed of gift recites the factum of prior gift then such deed is not  

required to be registered but  when the writing is  contemporaneous  

with the making of the gift, it must be registered, is inappropriate and  

does not  seem to us to be  in conformity with  the rule  of  gifts  in  

Mohammadan Law.  

30. In  considering  what  is  the   Mohammadan Law  on  the  

subject  of  gifts  inter  vivos,  the  Privy  Council  in  Mohammad  Abdul  

Ghani1 stated  that  when  the  old  and  authoritative  texts  of  

Mohammadan Law were promulgated there were not in contemplation  

of any one any Transfer of Property Acts, any Registration Acts, any  

Revenue Courts to record transfers of possession of land, and that  

could not  have been intended to lay down for  all  time what  should  

alone be the evidence that titles to lands had passed.   

31. Section  129  of  T.P.  Act  preserves  the  rule  of  

Mohammadan Law and excludes the applicability  of Section 123 of  

T.P. Act to a gift of an immovable property by a  Mohammadan.  We  

find  ourselves  in  express  agreement  with  the  statement  of  law  

reproduced  above  from  Mulla,  Principles  of  Mahomedan  Law (19th  

21

Edition), page 120.   In other words, it is not the requirement that in all  

cases where the gift deed is contemporaneous  to the making of the  

gift  then  such  deed  must  be  registered  under  Section  17  of  the  

Registration Act.   Each case would depend on its own facts.  

32. We are unable to concur with the view of the Full Bench of  

Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  the  case  of  Tayyaba  Begum5. We  

approve the view of the Calcutta High Court in  Nasib Ali3 that a deed  

of gift executed by a  Mohammadan is not the instrument effecting,  

creating or making the gift but a mere piece of evidence, such writing  

is not a document of title but is a piece of evidence.  

33. We also approve the view of the Gauhati High Court in the  

case of  Md. Hesabuddin10  . The judgments to the contrary by Andhra  

Pradesh High Court,  Jammu and Kashmir  High Court  and  Madras  

High Court do not lay down the correct law.

34. Now, as regards the facts of the present case, the gift was  

made by Shaik Dawood by a written deed dated February 5, 1968 in  

favour of his son  Mohammed Yakub in respect of the properties ‘A’  

schedule and ‘B’ schedule appended thereto.  The gift – as is recited  

in the deed – was based on love and affection for Mohammed Yakub  

22

as  after  the  death  of  donor’s  wife,  he  has  been  looking  after  and  

helping him.  Can it be said that because a declaration is reduced to  

writing, it must have been registered?  We think not. The acceptance  

of the gift by  Mohammed Yakub is also evidenced as he signed the  

deed.  Mohammed Yakub was  residing in the ‘B’ schedule property  

consisting of a house and a kitchen room appurtenant thereto and,  

thus, was in physical possession of residential house with the donor.  

The trial court on consideration of the entire evidence on record has  

recorded a categorical finding that Shaik Dawood (donor), executed  

the gift deed dated February 5, 1968 in favour of donee (Mohammed  

Yakub),  the donee accepted the gift and the donor handed over the  

properties  covered by the  gift  deed to  the donee.   The trial  court  

further  held  that  all  the  three  essentials  of  a  valid  gift  under  the  

Mohammadan Law were satisfied.   The view of the trial  court  is in  

accord with the legal position stated by us above.   The gift deed dated  

February 5, 1968 is a form of declaration by the donor and not an  

instrument of gift as contemplated under Section 17 of the Registration  

Act. As all the three essential requisites are satisfied by the gift deed  

dated  February  5,  1968,  the  gift  in  favour  of  defendant  2  became  

complete and irrevocable.   

23

35. The High Court in the impugned judgment relied upon the  

Full Bench  decision in the case of  Tayyaba Begum5   but we  have  

already held that the view of the Full Bench in Tayyaba Begum5 is not  

a correct view and does not lay down the correct law.

36. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and  

order dated September 13, 2004 passed by the High Court of Andhra  

Pradesh is set aside. The judgment and decree dated April 27, 1988  

passed  by  the  Principal,  Subordinate  Judge,  Vishakhapatnam  is  

restored. The parties shall bear their own costs.

   .………………….. J.           (R.M. Lodha)  

 …………………….. J.  (Surinder Singh Nijjar)

NEW DELHI. MAY 5, 2011.       

24