JUDGMENT : S. Ali Ahmad, J.–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. 2. 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. 3. 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 bas been decreed. 4. 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 section 26A read with section 12 of 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. 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. Sheikh Salahuddin (A. I. R. 1960 Patna 297). 5. Before I consider the argument and the decision referred to by Mr. Husain it wilt be convenient to quote sections 12 and 26A of the Bihar Tenancy Act which read as follows:– "12. Voluntary transfer of permanent tenure.–(1) A transfer of a permanent tenure by sale, gift, exchange or mortgage (other than a transfer by a sale in execution of a decree or by summary sale under any law relating to patni or other tenures) can be made only by a registered instrument." … … … (4) When the registration of any such instrument is complete, the registration officer shall send to the Collector the (landlord registration fee) (the costs necessary for the transmission of the same) and a notice of the transfer and registration in the prescribed form, and the Collector shall cause to be (transmitted) to, and the notice to be served on, the landlord (named in the notice) in the prescribed manner." "26A.-Transfer and bequest of an occupancy-holding or portion thereof-(1) Every occupancy-holding or a portion thereof, together with the right of occupancy therein, shall be capable of being transferred and bequeathed in the same manner and to the same extent as other immovable property, and all transfers made by sale, exchange or gift and all bequests shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be binding on the landlord. (2) Every transfer of an occupancy-holding or a portion thereof, together with the right of occupancy therein, by sale, exchange or gift and every bequest of such holding or portion, together with the right of occupancy therein, shall be made in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as a permanent tenure in respect of registration and the payment of landlord's registration fee." Section 12 of the Bihar Tenancy Act prescribes that a transfer of a permanent tenure by sale, exchange or mortgage (other than a transfer by a sale in execution of a decree or by summary sale under any law.........) can be made only by a registered instrument. Section 26-A of the Act regulates the transfer and bequests of occupancy holding or portion thereof. This section says that occupancy holding or a portion thereof can be transferred and bequeathed in the same manner and to the same extent as other immovable properties. It also says that all transfers will be binding on the landlord provided the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 26-A of the Act were fulfilled. Sub-section (2) says that all transfers shall be made in the same manner and subject to the conditions as a permanent tenure in respect of registration and the payment of landlord's registration fee. Mr. Husain says that since the gift was not made by a registered instrument, therefore, the same was invalid. In support of his argument, learned counsel first referred to the decision in the case of Bajrangi Gope v. Rupnarain Mahto (A. I. R. 1949 Patna 464) wherein a Bench of this Court held that a sale of an occupancy holding under unregistered instrument confers no title to the purchaser under section 26-A of the Act and, therefore, be cannot maintain a suit for possession against a purchaser in possession under a registered sale deed. In my view this decision has no application to the facts of this case. It cannot be disputed that the sale of any immoveable property for Rs. 100/- or above can be effected only through a registered document. The learned Judges were not considering the effect of oral gift by a Mohammaden. It is undisputed that by virtue of section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act the provisions of that Chapter do not apply to Muslims and they are governed by their personal law in matters of gift which permits oral gift. Therefore, in my opinion, this case does not help Mr. Husain at all. This point was considered in another case reported in A. I. R. 1960 Patna 297 (supra) which was decided by a single Judge. Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, J. (as he then was) in that decision held that a Mohammaden cannot transfer his occupancy holding by an oral gift in Contravention of the provisions of section 26-A read with section 12 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. With great respect, to the learned Judge, I am constrained to observe that the decision is not correct. Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, J. (as he then was) in that decision held that a Mohammaden cannot transfer his occupancy holding by an oral gift in Contravention of the provisions of section 26-A read with section 12 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. With great respect, to the learned Judge, I am constrained to observe that the decision is not correct. To appreciate the provisions of section 26-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, it will be better if I split this section in two parts. The first part of the section says that every occupancy holding or a portion thereof shall be capable of being transferred and bequeathed in the same manner and to same extent as other immovable property. It is undisputed that a Mohammaden can transfer an immovable property by an oral gift. Therefore, if a Mohammaden makes a gift of his occupancy holding orally then no exception can be taken to such a transfer. The other part of this section, however, provides that in case the transfer referred to above has to be made binding on the landlord then the provisions of sub-section (2) should also be complied with. The question of registration thus creeps in. Therefore, if the transfer has not been made by a registered instrument then the landlord may not be bound by it. Mr. Justice Mahapatra in the case of Siklichand Sah v. Photan Gope (1960 PLR 159) had occasion to consider a case of transfer of occupancy holding valued less than Rs. 100/-. In that case also the transfer was challenged on the ground that it was not done by a registered instrument. Ms. Justice Mahapatra held that since immovable property worth less than Rs. 100/- could be transferred orally, therefore, the exchange could not be held to be invalid on that account. He also observed that since the exchange was not made by a registered document, therefore, the landlord was not bound by it. This decision of Mr. Justice Mahapatra gives strong support to the view I have taken. Usually in all transfers, including gift, there are two parties; transferor and the transferee. But by virtue of the provisions contained in section 26-A read with section 12 of the Bihar Tenancy Act a third party also is it involved in such transfers and that party is the landlord. Justice Mahapatra gives strong support to the view I have taken. Usually in all transfers, including gift, there are two parties; transferor and the transferee. But by virtue of the provisions contained in section 26-A read with section 12 of the Bihar Tenancy Act a third party also is it involved in such transfers and that party is the landlord. The effect, in my view, of section 26-A read with section 12 is that the transfer, which in this case was by way of an oral gift will be binding as between the donor and the donee and their heirs and legal representatives. But the landlord may refuse to acknowledge such a transfer and may continue to sue the raiyat, who is recorded in his Serista. 6. Mr. Husain also referred to section 16(2)(iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act which reads as follows :– "16. Restriction on future acquisition by transfer etc.-(1) … … … (2) ... … … (iii) No land shall be transferred, exchanged leased, mortgaged, bequeathed or gifted without a document registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.'' "Explanation-Nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to have any effect on the provisions of the tenancy law of the area relating to transfer, exchange, lease, mortgage, agreement or settlement." Relying on this sub-section, learned counsel says that since the gift was made orally after the commencement of this Act, therefore, the same is bad. Learned counsel is not correct. As can be seen there is an explanation added to sub-section (2) which says that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to have any effect on the provisions of the Tenancy Law of the area relating to transfer, exchange, lease, mortgage agreement or settlement. The effect of this explanation is that we are again pushed back to section 26-A read with section 12 of the Bihar Tenancy Act and while interpreting those two sections I have held that these two sections do not create any bar on a Mohammaden to make an oral gift with respect to his occupancy holding. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (2) (iii) of section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 does not come in the way of the plaintiff-respondents. 7. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (2) (iii) of section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 does not come in the way of the plaintiff-respondents. 7. The result, therefore, is that in my view the argument of Mr. Husain that section 26-A read with section 12 of the Bihar Tenancy Act imposes a bar on a Mohammaden to transfer his occupancy holding by an oral gift has no substance. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed; but on the facts of this case. I would make no ORDER :as to costs. Appeal dismissed. S. S. Sandhawalia C. J.-I agree.