JUDGMENT 1. - Plaintiffs Gulam Mohinuddin and Afzal Hussain have filed this second appeal against the defendants Jalil and Nazir challenging the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed and the judgment of Additional Munsif No. 1, Jaipur was confirmed 2. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants for possession of the apartment house in the suit property mentioned in para I of the plaint The plaintiffs' case is that Maula Bux was the owner of the suit property and he gifted it to Ibrahim through a registered deed dated May 6, 1954. Then Ibrahim gifted this property in favour of the plaintiff on October 23, 1959 by a registered gift deed and handed over the possession of the building to them. Ibrahim often lives at Ahmedabad and when Ibrahim came to Jaipur in marriage of the plaintiff's daughters, defendant Jalil made a request that at that lime he had paucity of accommodation. On this request Ibrahim allowed Jalil to occupy the second storey of the suit property. However, the defendant did not vacate it and did not return it back to Ibrahim. Ibrahim gifted the house in suit to the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of that part of the property. The defendants in the written statement admitted that the suit property belonged to Maula Bux, but it is said that defendant Nazir had been brought up by Maula Bux as a son and the defendant No. 2 began to live with him He was also married in the same house and since then he had been living in the suit property. The gift deed was challenged on the ground that it is forged and fictitious and it was not correct that the defendants were living with permission of Ibrahim is the suit premises. It was pleaded that by living in the premises they have become owners and that the two gift deeds in the suit are not in accordance with the provisions of Mohammedan Law. 3. The issues were framed and evidence was recorded and thereafter the suit was dismissed on the ground that though gift deeds were executed one after the other, but once the title was not transferred, the gift was not valid. The plea of adverse possession of the defendants was not accepted. 3. The issues were framed and evidence was recorded and thereafter the suit was dismissed on the ground that though gift deeds were executed one after the other, but once the title was not transferred, the gift was not valid. The plea of adverse possession of the defendants was not accepted. However, in the sense of delivery of possession as the gift was not valid, the suit was dismissed. 4. The main question canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties relates to the validity of the gift. 5. Mr. Mathur appearing for the appellants submitted that admittedly the ground floor and the first floor of the property was given in possession to the plaintiffs and, therefore, they were in possession of the property. Merely, because so far as the first floor was concerned, as the defendants were living with the permission of Ibrahim, they were requested to vacate the same and that was enough for making the gift valid. 6. Mr. Mathur relied upon the judgment in Chandsaheb Kashimsaheb v. Gangabai Vishnu and Ors. AIR 1921 Bombay 248 ; where part of the property was mortgaged and it was held that possession given for the other part was treated as valid and the donee gets the right to redeem the mortgage. Similarly, in the Patna case in Abul Huque and Ors. v. Mst. Tamizan and Ors. AIR 1927 Patna 20 ; it was held that when donor put the donee in a position to take possession of all the properties in gift, it would be sufficient under the Mohammedan Law to validate the gift. 7. In another case of Madras High Court in Ajagar Nazar Saheb and Ors. v. Chedalvada Annimmah and Ors. AIR 1927 Madras 572 ; and in Mohammed Ayisha Been v. A. Samankatha Madar and another AIR 1945 Madras 95 ; it has been held that when the donee is actually put in possession of a part of the properties, the entire gift is valid i.e., even as regards the property of which possession was not delivered owing to the fact that the donor was not in possession at the time of the gift, especially when the donor has done all that he could do to enable the donee to recover possession of the property from the person in whose possession it was. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Mathur again pointed out that so far as the objection regard-ding incomplete gift is concerned, if the donor is making a voluntary conveyance of his property, the Mohammedan Law requires that he should not be compelled to complete the transaction unless he has done everything, in his power to make it final and conclusive. Until that point of time is reached, it is open to him to resile and therefore a transaction such as a gift is not looked upon as complete until the last act necessary to complete it has been done. Those rules do not apply when the donor supports the transaction and the dispute is not between the donor and the donee or one claiming through either, but between the donee and a stranger. Reliance in this connection was placed on Hailimbi w/o Mohammed Akbar v. Rahmatali Kasam Ali AIR 1940 Nagpur 70 and Kalu Beg Afzal Beg and Ors. v. Gulzar Beg, Lal Beg and Ors. AIR 1946 Nagpur 357 and it was argued that the defendants are strangers and, therefore, they cannot raise this objection. Similarly, in the Madras case Kairum Bi w/o Abdul Shukan and Ors. v. Mariam Bi and another reported in AIR 1960 Madras 447 ;, wherein it has been held that where a gift is otherwise proper, a stranger cannot invoke the rule that the gift is bad because (here has been no delivery of possession. 9. Mr. Mathur on the basis of above judgments submitted (hat the findings of the trial court on issue No. 1 are against law. 10. Mr. Kasliwal appearing for the defendant respondents controverted the submissions of Mr. Mathur and argued that it was not correct that the possession of the ground floor and the first floor had been taken according to the gift deed. According to him there was no evidence, nor there was any of mission. He further argued that the defendants in fact were claiming through the donee, because he was just like as adopted son. On the question of law canvassed by Mr. Mathur. It was argued by Mr. Kasliwal that the arguments submitted by Mr. Mathur, were not correct. Reference has been made to Ismal and Ors. v. Ramji Sambhaji and Ors. (23 ILR Bombay 682) ; Mogulsha v. Mohammed Saheb and Ors. 11 ILR Bombay 517 ; and Maqbool Alam Khan v. Mst. Khodaija and Ors. Mathur. It was argued by Mr. Kasliwal that the arguments submitted by Mr. Mathur, were not correct. Reference has been made to Ismal and Ors. v. Ramji Sambhaji and Ors. (23 ILR Bombay 682) ; Mogulsha v. Mohammed Saheb and Ors. 11 ILR Bombay 517 ; and Maqbool Alam Khan v. Mst. Khodaija and Ors. 1966(3) SCr 479 11. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record referred to me by the learned Counsel for the parties. The decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties now require consideration first. 12. In my opinion, it is well established law as per the decisions of Nagpur and Madras High Courts as referred to by Mr. Mathur that a stranger cannot take any objection regarding validity of the gift. The dispute can be between donor and donee and if the property has been gifted by a valid gift deed and possession has not been transferred, the stranger cannot resist the possession of that property. 13. None of the cases referred to by Mr. Kasliwal related to a stranger and, therefore, I have got no hesitation in holding that the principle of law canvassed by Mr. Mathur in this respect is well consistent. 14. Now coming to the conclusion whether Nazir is adopted son o(sic) Maula Bux, or there was no adoption as such. It has been said that Nazir was brought up by Maula Bux and had got him married in this very Haveli. If this all is treated to be correct, I am of opinion, that under law this would not give him the status of son and he cannot claim any right to property. 15. In view of decisions of the Madras High Court, Patna High Court and Bombay High Court, referred to above, it becomes clear that even if part of possession was not handed over at the time of gift, it cannot be presumed that the possession of the first floor and the ground floor is of the plaintiff In para 2 of the plaint it was mentioned that (he possession of the property was given to the plaintiff and except the dispute regarding the first floor no other dispute was raised. 16. 16. So far as the general requirements of a gift under the Mohammedan Law are concerned, there cannot be any dispute. As held in Maqbool Alam Khan v. Mst. Khodaija and Ors. (supra) under the Mohammedan Law the three requirements of a valid gift are declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that no overt act for possession was established. It was held that the mere act of declaration was not enough. 17. As discussed above, in the instant case, it is undisputed and admitted position that the ground floor and the second floor were given and taken possession by donor to the donee and for the first floor the defendants were asked to hand over the possession. In my opinion, this is valid gift and by this overt act, the donor tried to do all within the power of the donor to obtain and hand over possession and even if that part of the building was not handed over, yet the possession of the major part of the building i e. ground floor and second floor, was handed over. 18. In this view of the matter the principles of law laid down in Supreme Court case in no way assist Mr. Kasliwal for unholding the judgment of the trial court or the first appellate court. 19. So far as the decision of the Bombay High Court contained in Ismil and Ors. v. Ramji Sambhaji and Ors. (supra) is concerned, the same principle of Mohammedan Law has been reiterated that when possession is not delivered, the gift cannot be valid, and perfect. 20. Here also, their Lordships have observed that the possession can be physical or constructive. Similarly, in Mogulsha v. Mahammed Saheb and Ors. (supra) referred to by Mr. Kasliwal a gift on stipulation was held to be not valid, because emphasis of Mohammedan Law has been laid on possession and registration cannot take the place of possession. In the above case the Hon'ble High Court remanded the case for recording a finding whether possession was given or not as it was not clear. 21. It would thus be seen that the above three decisions referred to by Mr. Kasliwal only lay down that gift requires handing over of possession by donor to the donee. 22. In the above case the Hon'ble High Court remanded the case for recording a finding whether possession was given or not as it was not clear. 21. It would thus be seen that the above three decisions referred to by Mr. Kasliwal only lay down that gift requires handing over of possession by donor to the donee. 22. However, in none of the cases as indicated above, it has been laid down that stranger can raise this objection. Similarly, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Mathur substantial part of the building has been handed over to the donee by the donor, because second floor and ground floor are not in possession of the defendants and actual possession of the first floor is to be taken in the suit. The donor has made it clear that possession should be given to the donee and this was mentioned to the defendants, also. 23. AH these facts and circumstances clearly go to show that there was no invalidity attached to the gift in the present case. 24. I am, therefore, convinced that both the lower courts have come to a wrong conclusions, and committed serious error of law. 25. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted with costs. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs, throughout.Appeal Accepted With Costs. *******