JUDGMENT Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Plaintiff in O.S. 2 of 1977 of the Sub Court, Attingal is the appellant. Her suit for partition was dismissed by the Sub Judge having accepted the validity of Ext. B-1 gift in favour of the 1st defendant. This finding was confirmed in A.S. 540 of 1979 by the District Judge, Trivandrum. 2. The plaint schedule property belonged to deceased Abdul Karim who was the husband of the first defendant. Plaintiff is the daughter of Mohammed Ismail who was the only son of Abdul Karim and the first defendant. Plaintiff's case is that on the death of Abdul Karim her father became entitled to 7/8 shares being the only son and the remaining 1/8 share devolved on the first defendant as the widow of Abdul Karim. Plaintiff's father died on 10th August 1976 leaving behind his second wife and three children and plaintiff as heirs. Abdul Karim's second wife and children executed Ext. A-1 release deed in favour of the plaintiff by which they released all their rights in the property to her. Plaintiff claims to be entitled to 35/48 shares. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant is entitled only to the remaining 13/48 shares. Defendants contended that Abdul Karim gifted the plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant as per Ext. B-1 in 1122 M.E. and so plaintiff's father did not get any right in the property and hence the plaintiff cannot make any legal claim over the property. 3. The crucial point to be considered is as to whether Ext. B-1 gift deed is valid under the Mohammedan Mohammedan Law. The three essentials of a gift under Mohammedan Law are that there should be a declaration of gift by the donor, its acceptance, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. In case of compliance of all these conditions a Mohammedan gift is complete. It is essential for the validity of the gift that there should be delivery of such possession as the subject of the gift is susceptible of. Delivery of possession of the subject matter of the gift by the donee can be either actual or constructive. In a case where physical delivery of possession is not possible such possession as the property admits of can be delivered to the donee. Delivery of possession of the subject matter of the gift by the donee can be either actual or constructive. In a case where physical delivery of possession is not possible such possession as the property admits of can be delivered to the donee. It is essential that the donor must divest himself of his possession. Then only the gift will be complete. In a case where a donor makes a gift of the property which is in his actual possession it is necessary for him to depart from the premises with all his goods and chattels and to give possession to the donee. Though writing is not essential to the validity of the gift either of moveable or immoveable property under the Mohammedan Law it is essential for the validity of the gift that the three conditions with regard to declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession are satisfied. 4. There is essential difference in a case where the donor and donee both reside in the property. In such a case no physical departure of the donor or formal entry by the donee is necessary. Gift can be completed by some overt act by the donor indicating his clear intention to transfer possession and to divest himself of all his control in the property. In the case where husband gifts a property to his wife the fact that the husband continued to reside in the house or reserved right to receive rent or income from the property will not invalidate the gift. The presumption is always that the rent and income are collected by the husband on behalf of the wife and not on his own account. The legal effect of hiba (gift) is that the immediate and absolute ownership of hiba is transferred to the donee. Though it is the fundamental rule of Mohammedan Law as regards gift that the donor should divest himself completely of all ownership and dominion over the subject of the gift and that there should be delivery of such possession as it is capable of, a condition in a gift by a husband to the wife reserving the right to take income from the property will not invalidate the gift. As held in Ashia Ummal v. Vasanthi 1964 KLT 844 in a case where the donor and donee are residing together the formal entry by the donee is not necessary to make the gift complete and in such a case the gift may be completed by some overt act by the donor indicating a clear intention on his part to transfer possession and to divest himself of all control over the subject of the gift. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that in Ext. B-l the donor has reserved 'anubhavam' of the property to himself till his death and this could show that the donor retained possession of the property to himself and hence the gift is invalid. Relying on the meaning of the word 'anubhavam' in Gundert's dictionary, counsel submitted that as 'anubhavam' means enjoyment of the property and as enjoyment of the property cannot be there without possession it has to be necessarily inferred that no possession was transferred to the first defendant as per Ext. B-1 document. A reading of the recitals in Ext. B-l would not at all show that the donor retained possession of the property to himself. It is clear from the recitals in the document that the word 'anubhavam' can only refer to the enjoyment of the usufructs or income from the property. 6. Contention of the counsel that Ext. B-l does not make any mention of handing over possession of the property by the donor to the donee and therefore one of the most essential conditions of a Mohammedan gift is absent and hence on that sole score the gift is void is not tenable as the recitals in the document sufficiently clearly indicate a complete gift by the husband to the wife. As the donor has only reserved for himself the right to take profits of the property till his death and the right to reside along with his wife (donee) in the building, it is not possible to infer that the essential conditions of a gift under Mohammedan Law has not been satisfied. 7. The intention of the donor to divest himself of all dominion and control of the property is made clear in Ext. B-1 itself by directing mutation in her name and to pay the tax. 7. The intention of the donor to divest himself of all dominion and control of the property is made clear in Ext. B-1 itself by directing mutation in her name and to pay the tax. It is in evidence that the first defendant has effected mutation in her name and had been paying tax from 1122 M.E. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on Mohamed Aslam Khan v. Khalilul Rehman Khan AIR 1947 PC 97 and contended that mere mutation in the revenue register will not be sufficient to uphold the gift under Mohammedan Law. The above decision has no application to the facts of the case in hand as the recitals in Ext. B-1 gift deed clearly satisfy the essential conditions of a Mohammedan gift. The mutation- effected in the name of the first defendant as stipulated under Ext. B-l is really an added circumstance to hold that the gift has taken effect. 8. Merely because the donor continued to reside in the property along with the donee it cannot be said that there was no effectual delivery of possession of the property to the donee. In Amina Bibi v. Khatija Bibi 1864 (1) Bombay HC 157 the gift was from a husband to the wife, and the gift consisted of a house in which the husband and wife lived together, and of an adjoining house which was let out to tenants. In the above case Sir M. Sausee, C. J. held: "In my opinion, the relation of husband and wife and his legal right to reside with herand to manage her property rebut the inference which in the case of parties standing in a different relation would arise from a continued residence in the house after the making of the hiba (gift), and in the husband generally receiving the rents of the chawl annexed to that house." As the donor who was the husband of the donee continued to live in the house and enjoyed the income from the property till his death, it cannot be said that the gift has not taken effect. It is useful to refer Muhamed Yusuf v. Muhammed Yusuf AIR 1958 Madras 527 where it is held as follows: "Where the donor and donee are staying jointly in the house, which is the subject matter of the gift, in order to effectuate the delivery of possession, the donor need not remove himself from the house, in order that the gift might be operative." Recitals in Ext. B-1 unequivocally show that the property was gifted by Abdul Karim to his wife and that he had divested his rights in the property subject to a right of residence along with his wife. Reservation of enjoyment of income from the property is not repugnant to the gift in view of the conjugal relationship of the donor and donee. The Courts below have rightly upheld the validity of Ext. B-1 gift deed. That being so, the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the suit property. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.