JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought by Rameswar Prosad Gupta of Maxwell Bazar, Imphal, for obtaining a declaration that the southern half portion of the plot No. 71 along with buildings thereon situated at Maxwell Bazar, Imphal, belonged to him and he was in possession thereof. According to the plaintiff-respondent Bunsiram Halui was the holder of the plot in question and he had constructed a pucca building thereon and he used to reside there with his family which consisted of two wives, Srimati Monsari and Srimati Kungari, two daughters Srimati Dasodiya and Srimati Ramdasi, and one Kali Prosad Gupta who is the present appellant. Bunsirams daughter Ramdasi (since deceased) was married to the present plaintiff-respondent, Rameswar Prosad Gupta, during the life-time of Bunsiram. According to the plaintiff he had been residing in the house in question as Gharjamai (Thong, enba) and so Bunsiram made oral gift of half portion of the aforesaid plot along with the buildings thereon and also half portion in the business which he had been carrying on, and since then the plaintiff remained in possession of the southern portion of the building. Bunsiram died about 4 years after the marriage of the plaintiff and Kali Prosad appellant was a minor at that time, but on attaining majority he partitioned his share in the business. The plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the southern portion of the plot and buildings thereon. As the appellant got his name mutated over the entire suit property Rameswar Prosad Gupta had brought the present suit for declaration. The defendant appellant denied the plaintiffs title as well as oral gift and he contended that the plaintiff worked as a watchman after the death of Bunsiram as the defendant-appellant along with his mother had left for his native land in Bihar. 2-3. The learned Sub-Judge who tried this case decreed it and so the defendant has come in appeal. The first question which arises for determination in this case is whether the plaintiff-respondent could properly succeed in this case without proving that the disputed property -was self-acquired property of Bunsiram. (The Court after considering the evidence on record held that the evidence on the record did not prove in any way that the disputed property was self-acquired property of Bunsiram and then stated). (The Court after considering the evidence on record held that the evidence on the record did not prove in any way that the disputed property was self-acquired property of Bunsiram and then stated). It is admitted that the parties are governed by the Mitakshara law and as a father under the Mitakshara law has no power to dispose of the joint family property by gift or will except in certain cases when he disposes of a small portion of moveables of joint family or makes gift out of affection or he makes gift within reasonable limit of the ancestral property for pious purposes. The position with regard to separate or self-acquired property appears to be different, but as the plaintiff, in the present case, has not proved that the disputed property was the self-acquired property of Bunsiram, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Bunsiram could legally make gift of the disputed property to him. 4-5. (The Court then examined the question whether Bunsiram had actually made any oral gift to the plaintiff-respondent before his deaths and held that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged oral gift and that the theory of the defendant that the plaintiff looked after the property after the death of Bunsiram merely as a watchman and paid taxes in that capacity was probable and that from that conduct alone it could not be inferred that Bunsiram had made a gift of half of his property to the plaintiff. It then proceeded to state). The learned Advocate for the appellant has urged that no oral gift was permissible in Manipur State in or near about February 1935. There is no doubt that the Indian Registration Act has been enforced in this State from 16-4-50, but prior to year 1950 Rules for the Management of the State of Manipur1 had been in force from 1907 onwards. Rules regarding registration were as follows : REGISTRATION. 1. The following documents must be registered : (1) Mortgages and deeds of gift or sale of : (a) Homestead lands; (b) Culturable lands or crops; (c) Cattle and ponies; (2) Deeds of a cash value of more than Rs. 15/-; (3) Transfers of all fisheries, ferries, salt-wells; and grass mahals; (4) Agreement for hypothecation of crops of more than 12 pots of dhan. 15/-; (3) Transfers of all fisheries, ferries, salt-wells; and grass mahals; (4) Agreement for hypothecation of crops of more than 12 pots of dhan. It has been urged on the basis of this rule that no oral gift could be made in the State of Manipur regarding immoveable property and residential building in the year 1935 when Bunsiram died. The appellants contention is that the present case would be governed by the rule relating to Hindu gifts to which the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, applies. In such cases rule of pure Hindu law that delivery of possession is essential to the validity of a gift, is abrogated by Section 123 of that Act. Under that Act delivery of possession is no longer necessary to complete a gift, nor is mere delivery sufficient to constitute a gift except in the case of a moveable property. 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 2 witnesses. The Transfer of Property Act was not in force in Manipur in 1935. The provision regarding attestation would not be binding but according to the appellant no oral gift could be made by Bunsiram in favour of the plaintiff in 1935 and if any gift were to be made it could be made only by means of registered instrument. On behalf of the respondent it has been urged that Maxwell Bazar was not a part of Manipur State then and so the rule regarding gift under pure Hindu law would be applicable in this case and this rule is that such a gift need not be in writing, but the gift must be accompanied by delivery of possession of the subject of the gift from the donor to the donee. It has been conceded before me at the time of argument that Maxwell Bazar area was not a part of territory of the Maharajah of Manipur and so rules relating to registration referred to above were inapplicable there. I am, therefore, unable to find any force in this contention of the appellant. It has been conceded before me at the time of argument that Maxwell Bazar area was not a part of territory of the Maharajah of Manipur and so rules relating to registration referred to above were inapplicable there. I am, therefore, unable to find any force in this contention of the appellant. But as the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove in this case that Bunsiram made any oral gift in his favour regarding the disputed property and as he further failed to prove that the disputed property was self-acquired property of Bunsiram, I hold that the plaintiffs case could not legally succeed and the finding of the learned Sub-Judge to the contrary is incorrect. 6. I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the decree which has been passed by the learned Sub-Judge in this case and the plaintiffs suit is dismissed with cost in both the Courts. Appeal allowed.