JUDGMENT 1. - This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment dated March 1, 1977, of the District Judge, Pratapgarh, dismissing the plaintiffs suit by reversing the judgment and decree dated November 2, 1974, of the Additional Civil Judge, pratapgarh, who had decreed the plaintiffs suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the work of constructions being done by the plaintiffs. 2. The suit, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed by the appellants on August 23, 1971, in the Court of Munsif, Pratapgarh, against the defendants for injunction and damages with the allegations that the plaintiffs were raising constructions on a plot, situated at Panditji ki Bawari, Pratapgarh, it was alleged that the said plot belonged to and was in the possession of the plaintiffs. They had obtained permission of the Municipal Board, Pratapgarh, on May 11, 1971, and had started the work of constructions on July 13, 1971. It was urged that the defendants were objecting to the constructions and had disturbed the work on July 14, 1971. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs suffered a loss of Rs. 200/- on account of the obstructions made by the defendants Nos. 2 to 11. 3. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 2 to 11, who alleged that the suit plot did not belong to the plaintiffs. Rather it belonged to Shri Abdul s/o. Khuda Bux who had given it in Wakf to the Masjid Mohalla Bawari. It was further alleged that previously also in a litigation about this very plot in which Chandu s/o. Suleman Kunjara was also party, it was held that it belonged to Abdul. 4. By the judgment dated November 2, 1974, the Additional Civil Judge, Pratapgarh, decreed the plaintiffs' suit restraining the defendants from interfering in the construction work of the plaintiffs on the suit plot. The plaintiffs' claim for damages was, however, disallowed. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the plaintiffs acquired the title to the plot by a sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Jannat Begam w/o. Vazir Mohammed by Chandu on October 5, 1970 and that Chandu had acquired his title to the said plot by virtue of a gift deed executed in his favour by Nathu on May 24,1945. The Additional Civil Judge, thus, decreed the plaintiffs suit on the basis of title derived by them from Chandu. 5. The Additional Civil Judge, thus, decreed the plaintiffs suit on the basis of title derived by them from Chandu. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Pratapgarh, who by the judgment dated March 1, 1977, reversed the same and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Chandu, through whom they claimed their title, had not himself acquired a valid title to the suit plot. According to the learned District Judge Chandu claimed his title through a Gift Deed alleged to have been made in his favour by Nathu but the said gift could not be held as complete as the two essential conditions to complete the gift under the Mohammedan Law, namely:- (i) that the gift was accepted by the donee, and (ii) that it was accompanied by delivery of possession by the donor to the donee, were not duly proved. 6. The learned District Judge in these circumstances came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the suit plot and therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed. 7. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, the plaintiffs have come in second appeal to this Court 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs have founded their suit on title. They have, therefore, to establish not only that a sale was executed by Chandu in favour Smt. Jannta Begam but also that Chandu had a valid title in himself and for this purpose they had to show that the gift made by Nathu in favour of Chandu was valid and complete. The crucial question for determination in this case, therefore, is whether the gift alleged to have been made by Nathu in favour of Chandu on May 24, 1945 was complete in law. Both Chandu and Nathu were Mohammedans. A gift under the Mohammedan Law requires the following three conditions to be complied with, namely:- (i) a declaration of gift by the donor; (ii) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee; and (iii) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. 9. In the present case, conditions Nos. (ii) & are not satisfied. 9. In the present case, conditions Nos. (ii) & are not satisfied. There is no evidence on the record to show that Smt. Jannat Begam, the donee, accepted the gift. Further, the plaintiffs have also failed to establish that there was delivery of possession of the property. The deed of gift contained no recital that possession of the property had been given or was being given to the donee. The plaintiffs put forward a case that Chandu was already in possession of the property even prior to the gift. But this averment stands negatived by a clear recital in the gift deed itself where it is mentioned that the donor was in possession of the property. In the gift deed Ex. 4, Nathu, the donor, has in terms stated I am in possession of the property as owner thereof. This clearly shows that when the gift was made, the donor himself was in possession of the property prior to the gift. Significantly the deed is silent that the possession of the property was being passed over to Chandu. No other evidence, oral or documentary, has been adduced by the plaintiffs to show that the possession of the property was given to the donee either at the time of the execution of the deed or subsequently thereafter. Obviously, therefore, the learned District Judge was right in holding that the essentials to complete a gift under the Mohammedan Law were wanting and the gift in the present case could not be said to be complete so effect a valid transfer in favour of Chandu. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the District Judge should not have gone into the question relating to the validity of the gift as there was no issue on the point. There is no substance in this contention. It were the plaintiffs who had to prove not only that they received the property by sale from Chandu, but that Chandu himself had acquired a valid title to the property and for this purpose the plaintiffs themselves founded the title of Chandu on the deed of gift made by Nathu. It was for the plaintiffs to establish that the gift was complete in law. Both the parties were alive to the controversy and it is too late now to urge that this question should not have been decided in the absence of an issue. It was for the plaintiffs to establish that the gift was complete in law. Both the parties were alive to the controversy and it is too late now to urge that this question should not have been decided in the absence of an issue. Further, issue No. 1, as framed, is wide enough to cover the question whether the gift was complete in law. Learned Counsel then urged that the learned District Judge failed to discuss the evidence led by the parties. To this the short answer of the counsel for the respondents is that whatever relevant evidence on the question was led by the parties has been discussed by the learned District Judge. Counsel for the appellants could not finger any evidence which had a bearing and which the learned District Judge failed to consider. Learned Counsel has also urged that the Court should not have allowed challenge to the gift when neither the donor nor the donee was challenging the same. I do not find any force in this argument also. The plaintiffs want an injunction on the basis of title. It was their burden to show that the ownership of the property passed to them by a gift which was valid and complete in law. Counsel for the appellant also urged that the learned District Judge failed to decide Issue No. 7 and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs. When the suit itself was held to be not maintainable, there was no need to go into the contentions urged in the cross-objections. Further Issue No. 7 was to the effect as to whether the present suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable on account of the earlier litigation in respect of the same Talia. This issue was raised on the plea taken by the defendants. When the suit was held not maintainable for want of title in the plaintiffs, there was no necessity of deciding Issue No. 7. 11. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the appellants. To sum up, the plaintiffs failed to prove their title. They had based their suit on title derived from Chandu but they failed to prove that Chandu himself had acquired a valid title to the same. The suit was not based on long possession. Further, this question was neither raised before the Trial Court nor before the First Appellate Court. To sum up, the plaintiffs failed to prove their title. They had based their suit on title derived from Chandu but they failed to prove that Chandu himself had acquired a valid title to the same. The suit was not based on long possession. Further, this question was neither raised before the Trial Court nor before the First Appellate Court. In the memo of second appeal in this Court also the appellants have not taken a ground that they base their case on their long possession. The learned District Judge was right in holding that there was no evidence to the effect that the possession of the property was given to Chandu by the donor at the time of the execution of the deed of gift. No evidence was led that the donor handed over the possession of the plot to Chandu at any time subsequently. As already pointed out the statement of the plaintiffs that Chandu was in possession of the plot even prior to are gift is falsified by the recital in the deed of gift itself where the donor in terms stated that he was still in possession of the plot. In such circumstances, it is difficult to hold that Chandu was ever in possession of the plot in dispute. Moreover it would not be out of place, at this stage, to refer to the order dated July 18, 1958, passed by the Civil Judge, Pratapgarh, in case No. 7/58 Peeru v. Chandu . In that case one Nitya Nand having obtained a decree against Chandu got the plot auctioned in execution of his decree. Peeru purchased it and wanted to take possession of the same. This was resisted by Abdul and Chhotu. Peeru filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. In reply to this application Abdul alleged that the plot was bequeathed by Nathu in his favour and that Chhotu was his tenant in occupation, Chandu was a party in these proceedings. The Civil Judge found that the plot was in possession of Chhotu and not Chandu and that it had been bequeathed by Nathu in favour of Abdul. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain their suit based on either title or possession. 12. There is no merit in the second appeal and the same is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******