BIBI REHANA KHATOON Vs. BIBI JABRUNNISA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No. 596 of 1979 has been filed on behalf of defendant No. 9 whereas Second Appeal No. 597 of 1979 has been filed on behalf of defendant No. 10 to a suit filed by respondent No. 1 for declaration of her right over the suit land. Her case, in short, was that the land in question belonged to her father -in -law Rasooldad Khan, who made a gift of it in her favour in presence of her relations and put her in possession. It was said that since then she has been coming in possession over the suit land. She alleged that after the death of Rasooldad Khan, the defendants were threatening to dispossess her and, as such, she was obliged to file the suit. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that the story of gift by Rasooldad Khan in favour of the plaintiff was not correct. They further stated that on the death of Rasooldad Khan the property in suit was inherited by them which they sold to defendant nos. 9 and 10. A separate written statement was also filed by defendant nos. 9 and 10. They also contended that on the death of Rasooldad Khan his heirs inherited the suit land and defendant nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 6 sold their share to defendant nos. 9 and 10. The story of gift in favour of the plaintiff by Rasooldad Khan was also disputed.

(2.) The two courts below concurrently held that Rasooldad Khan gifted the suit property to the plaintiff and as a result of that she was in possession of the same. On these findings the suit has been decreed.

(3.) The finding that the plaintiff respondent has successfully proved her case regarding gift by Rasooldad Khan is purely a finding of fact. Mr. Husain very rightly did not challenge this finding. He, however, contended that in view of the provisions as contained in Sec. 26A read with Sec. 12of the Bihar Tenancy Act, the gift of a raiyati holding has got to be made by a registered document. He says that since the gift was not made by a registered document but was made orally therefore the same was illegal and, as such, it did not confer any title on the plaintiff respondent. In support of his argument, Learned Counsel referred to the decision in the case of Mt. Bibi Sharifan v/s. Sheikh Salahuddin (A. I. R. 1960 Patna 297).