[1.0] Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the appellants herein – original plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.09.1983 in Regular Civil Suit No.219 of 1977 as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 26.12.1985 passed by the learned Appellate Court – learned Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No.194 of 1983 by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the appellants herein – original plaintiffs confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. [1.1] Civil Application No.7604 of 2012 has been preferred by the appellants requesting to frame the following additional substantial question of law.
(a) Whether the Lower Court was right in framing and deciding these points while deciding the remanded appeal to it?
(b) Whether the judgment and decree passed in the appeal by the Lower Court are vitiated in view of the matter... for the reason that it has not decided rest of the points which were decided by the Lower Court on remand?
(c) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Court are liable to be set aside for its failure to decide all points as required by the remand order?
[2.0] Brief facts leading to the present Second Appeal in nut shell are as under:
[2.1] That the suit property in question was owned by one Ghanchi Ibhram Isakhari father of appellant No.1 original plaintiff No.1 and husband of original defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3. That on the death of original owner Ghanchi Ibhram Kharivavwala, the appellants herein original plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No.219 of 1977 against original defendant Nos.1 to 7 for partition of the suit property under the Mohammedan Law. That the suit was resisted by original defendant Nos.1 to 3 by filing the joint written statement Exh.13. It was denied that the suit property belong to deceased Ghanchi Ibhram Isakhari. It was also denied that the suit properties are in possession of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as alleged. It was denied that the deceased Ghanchi Ibhram Isakhari had left out the properties as alleged in the plaint. That defendant No.7 filed the written statement at Exh.21 denying the averments and allegations in the plaint. That the learned trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is joint property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition?
3. What order and decree?
[2.2] That on behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 Azra Ibhram came to be examined at Exh.36. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 examined herself at Exh.52. The defendants also examined four other witnesses inclusive of one Ibhram Musa at Exhs.53, 54 & 55. It had come on record that the suit property was gifted by the deceased during his life time in favour of one Ibhram Musa, who was examined at Exh.53. That the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangrol, by judgment and decree dated 19.03.1981 dismissed the suit. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangrol dated 19.03.1981 in Regular Civil Suit No.219 of 1977, the appellants herein original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.41 of 1981 before the learned District Court, Junagadh. It appears that in the Appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, a pursis was submitted by the learned advocates appearing for respective parties at Exh.8, under which it was requested to allow the Appeal and to quash and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and to remand the matter to the trial Court by directing the learned trial Court to recast the issues and add the proposed issue "Whether the alleged gift is proved to be a valid gift under the Mohammedan Law"? and the said issue to be framed as Issue No.2A. Therefore, by consent of the learned advocates appearing for respective parties, the learned District Judge, Junagadh by order dated 24/03/1983 allowed the said Appeal quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 19.03.1981 and remanded the matter to the trial Court with following directions.
“Parties are permitted to join Ghanchi Ibhram Musa as defendant No.8 and the plaint to be amended accordingly. Amendment to be carried out before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to recast the issues and the proposed issue that whether the alleged gift is proved to be invalid gift under the Mohammedan Law to be framed as issued No.2A. After joining the aforesaid proposed party as defendant No.8 and after recasting the issues, if defendant No.8 desires to crossexamine any of the plaintiff witnesses then he may be permitted to so so and the parties also be permitted to lead additional evidence if they so desire and the learned trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits. Parties to bear their own cost.”
[2.3] That thereafter pursuant to the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, respondent No.8 in whose favour the deceased executed the gift deed (Exh.83) was joined as party defendant No.8. It appears that pursuant to the liberty reserved by the learned lower Appellate Court, defendant No.8 came to be examined below Exh.53 and he was also further crossexamined. However, no further evidence came to be lead by the plaintiffs on remand. That thereafter on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the gift by the original owner in favour of defendant No.8 is valid under the Mohammedan Law. The learned trial Court answered issue No.2 accordingly and consequently dismissed the suit which was filed by original plaintiffs for partition of the suit property which was found to be gifted by the original owner in favour of defendant No.8.
[2.4] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 03.09.1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangrole in Civil Suit No.219 of 1977 in dismissing the same, the appellants herein original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.194 of 1983 before the learned District Court, Junagadh and the learned lower Appellate Court learned Assistant Judge, Junagadh by impugned judgment and order dated 26.12.1985 has been pleased to dismiss the said Appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order / decree passed by both the Courts below in dismissing the suit, the appellants herein original plaintiffs have preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.
[2.5] At the outset it is required to be noted that while admitting the present Second Appeal, the learned Single Judge raised the following substantial question of law only.
"Whether the gift deed is proved or not as required under the law?"
That thereafter when the present Second Appeal was taken up for final hearing on 20.06.2012, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants sought adjournment by submitting that he would like to submit an appropriate application for reframing the substantial question of law and/or to add a substantial question of law. That thereafter the Civil Application No.7604 of 2012 has been preferred by the appellants to add the following substantial questions of law which shall be dealt with hereinafter.
(a) Whether the Lower Court was right in framing and deciding these points while deciding the remanded appeal to it?
(b) Whether the judgment and decree passed in the appeal by the Lower Court are vitiated in view of the matter... for the reason that it has not decided rest of the points which were decided by the Lower Court on remand?
(c) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Court are liable to be set aside for its failure to decide all points as required by the remand order?
[3.0] Shri Suresh M. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants herein original plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in holding that the gift in favour of original defendant No.8 is in accordance with law. It is submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in holding the gift in favour of defendant No.8 as valid and/or as per the law though the gift as required by law has not been proved by examining the attesting witnesses to the gift deed Exh.83. Relying upon Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it is submitted that the gift deed executed by the original owner father of the appellant No.1 in favour of defendant No.8 was required to be proved by examining the attesting witnesses to the same and as the attesting witnesses to the gift deed are not examined, the gift deed could not have been used as evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in using the gift deed at Exh.83 as evidence by holding that the gift is as per the law.
[3.1] It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that both the Courts below, more particularly, learned Appellate Court has materially erred in observing that attesting witnesses need not be examined. It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that even both the Courts below have materially erred in holding that the defendant No.8 was handed over the possession of the property which was gifted to him by the original owner. It is submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in observing that as the possession was already with defendant No.8 at the time of gift, the possession was not required to be handed over. It is submitted that handing over of possession could not have been held solely on the ground that defendant No.8 was residing with the deceased.
[3.2] Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has further submitted that even otherwise the original owner could not have gifted the entire property as under the provisions of Mohammedan Law the gift of the entire property is invalid / not permissible.
[3.3] Now, so far as the proposed additional substantial questions of law are concerned, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has not made any submission. Therefore, as such this Court is not required to consider anything on the proposed additional substantial question of law referred to herein above.
Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Second Appeal.
[4.0] Present Second Appeal is opposed by Shri D.M. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of defendant No.8. It is submitted by Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of defendant No.8 that there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below holding that the gift by original owner in favour of original defendant No.8 was as per the law. It is further submitted that even under the gift deed at Exh.83, there is reference to handing over the possession of the suit property. It is submitted that as such all the requirements of the gift under the Mohammedan Law have been satisfied and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in holding that the gift of the suit property is as per the law.
[4.1] It is further submitted that even otherwise despite the fact that it was declared that the suit property has been gifted to defendant No.8 and is in possession of the suit property, the plaintiffs have never amended the suit to challenge the gift deed at Exh.83. It is submitted that still in view of the additional issue framed by the lower Appellate Court issue No.2A, defendant No.8 has proved that there was a valid gift deed in his favour. Therefore, it is submitted that when the suit property was given in gift by the original owner way back in the year 1973 during his life time, both the Courts below have rightly refused to passed the decree for partition as there was no property of the original owner which was to be partitioned. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of reported in Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Ors. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 693. Relying upon the above decision it is submitted that when the gift under the Mohammedan law does not require the same in writing there is no question of examining any attesting witnesses. It is submitted that Section 68 of the Evidence Act will be applicable only in a case where the document is required to be attested under the law. Therefore, it is submitted that when under the Mohammedan law gift is not required to be in writing and/or attesting of the same is not required under the law, Section 68 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable.
[4.2] So far as contention on behalf of the appellants that the entire suit property could not have been gifted in view of the provisions of the Mohammedan Law and therefore, the entire gift is invalid is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of defendants, more particularly, defendant No.8 that neither such a plea was raised before the trial Court nor even before the learned Appellate Court and even such a contention has not been raised by the appellants in the present Second Appeal and even no substantial question of law has been framed by this Court in the present Appeal and even for the same there is no proposed additional substantial question of law. Therefore, it is requested not to consider the same.
Making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present present Second Appeal.
[5.0] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgment and order and decree passed by both the Courts below as well as the evidence on record from the R & P received from the learned trial Court. At the outset it is required to be noted that earlier the learned trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 19.03.1981, however, in an Appeal against the said judgment and decree, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties and considering the pursis submitted at Exh.8, learned Appellate Court quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court by directing the learned trial Court to recast the issues and add the proposed issue “whether the alleged gift is proved to be a valid gift under the Mohammedan law?” On remand the learned trial Court framed the aforesaid issue at Exh.2A and on appreciation of evidence has held that the gift deed executed in favour of defendant No.8 cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of Mohammedan law and consequently the learned trial Court after joining the person in whose favour deceased executed gift deed as defendant No.8 has dismissed the said suit against which the appellant herein – original plaintiff instituted the Appeal which is also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Considering the original substantial question of law framed by the learned Single Judge, the only question which is required to be considered is whether the gift deed by the original land owner in favour of defendant No.8 is proved or not as required under the law. This Court has also considered proposed additional substantial question of law stated in the Civil Application No.7604 of 2012, however, as such none of them cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. It appears that the learned Appellate Court has considered all the issues which are argued before it and even considering the earlier remand order, was required to consider the main issue with respect to whether the gift deed in favour of defendant No.8 is in accordance with law or not. As stated herein above, even the learned Single Judge also while admitting the present Second Appeal has framed the aforesaid substantial question of law only. Therefore, this Court is considering the aforesaid substantial question of law i.e. whether the gift deed is proved or not as required under the law?
[5.1] So far as the aforesaid question of law is concerned, it is the case on behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs that as attesting witness to the gift deed executed by the original owner has not been examined, it cannot be said that the gift deed in favour of defendant No.8 has been proved. Relying upon Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it is submitted that gift deed executed by the original owner – father of appellant No.1 herein – defendant No.8 was required to be proved by examining attesting witness to the same. As such no other submissions have been made on the aforesaid. The aforesaid submission has no substance. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahboob Sahab (Supra), gift by a Mohammedan is not required to be in writing and consequently need not to be registered under the Registration Act. It is further observed that for a gift by a Mohammedan 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 subjectmatter of the gift by the donor to the donee. The donee should take delivery of the possession of that property either actually or constructively and on proof of the aforesaid essential conditions, the gift becomes complete and valid. Therefore, for a valid and complete gift by Mohammedan, the aforesaid three ingredients only are to be satisfied. In the present case the donor has made a declaration of the gift in favour of the defendant No.8; defendant No.8 has accepted the same as a gift and infact as defendant No.8 was already in possession of the gift property and even in the gift deed itself, it is stated that the possession is delivered. Therefore, as such defendant No.8 was already in possession of the gift property at the time of gift as such the actual delivery of the possession was not required and to mention the gift deed with respect to the delivery of the possession is sufficient compliance. Under the circumstances, when all the ingredients for a complete and invalid gift by a Mohammedan as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision are complied with, both the Courts below have not committed any error and/or illegality in holding that there is a valid gift by the original owner – father of appellant No.1 in favour of original defendant No.8.
[5.2] Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the appellants that as the attesting witness to the gift deed are not examined and reliance placed upon Section 68 of the Evidence Act for the same is concerned, it is required to be noted that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act only those documents which are required to be attested under the law is executed, to prove the same one of the attesting witness is required to be examined. However, for applying Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it is to be proved that the document which is executed, is required to be attested under any other law. As stated herein above, under the Mohammedan law, gift by a Mohammedan is not required to be in writing and consequently need not to be registered under the Registration Act. Therefore, gift deed executed by the Mohammedan is not required to be attested. Therefore, Section 68 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable. Therefore, merely because the attesting witness has not been examined, the gift deed executed by the original owner in favour of defendant No.8 which otherwise is valid and in accordance with the Mohammedan law cannot be declared invalid. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such the plaintiffs have not challenged the legality and validity of the gift deed executed by the original owner – father of appellant No.1 in favour of defendant No.8. No such declaration has been sought. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by both the Courts below in holding that there is a valid gift deed by the original owner in favour of defendant No.8.
[5.3] Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the appellants that both the Courts below have materially erred in holding that defendant No.8 was in a possession of the suit property is concerned, it is required to be noted that it is a question of fact and the finding of fact given by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. Even otherwise no such substantial question of law has been framed by the learned Single Judge while admitting the present Second Appeal and even no such substantial question of law is proposed by the appellants. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umerkhan vs. Bismillah alias Babulal Shah and Ors. reported in (2011)9 SCC 684, in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, formulation of the substantial question of law is sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. It is further held that without satisfaction about involvement of such question and without formation of such question, High Court cannot entertain the second appeal and reverse the findings of the first Appellate Court.
[5.4] Now, so far as the submission made by Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that the original owner – father of appellant No.1 could not have gifted the entire property as under the Mohammedan law the entire property cannot be gifted is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such no such contention has been raised by the appellants either before the learned trial Court or even before the learned Appellate Court. The appellant cannot be permitted to raise the contention/issue which was never raised either before the trial Court or before the lower Appellate Court and the same is raised first time in Second Appeal. It is required to be noted that even no such substantial question of law is even proposed. Even otherwise as stated herein above, the appellants – original plaintiffs have never questioned the gift deed executed by the original owner in favour of defendant No.8.
[5.5] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the suit which is rightly confirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
[6.0] In view of the above, present Second Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7604 OF 2012 In view of dismissal of main Second Appeal, present Civil Application No.7604 of 2012 is also dismissed for the reasons stated above. No costs.
menon Sd/ (M.R. Shah, J.)