This appeal arises from the decree of the District Judge, Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1979 allowing the appeal from the decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 3 of 1977, 2. Facts,-Sisters (plaintiffs) brought the Suit No. 3/77 against their brothers (defendants) for partition of the suit land left by their father Raja Mahmud. It is not disputed that Raja Mahmud was the owner of the suit land. However, the case of the brothers is that, during the life time of Raja Mahmud, he gifted his sons with the suit land. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the brothers failed to prove the gift. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit holding that the brothers have proved the gift and that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that there is no prayer for declaration of tide in the plaint. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr. D.N. Baruab, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no evidence at all to prove the alleged gift and, therefore, the findings of the lower appellate Court is based on no evidence. There are four witnesses who have staled about the gift. Let me examine the evidence of witnesses if there is any evidence with regard to the gift in question. The evidence of DW 1 Panaullah Sarkar, the defendant No. 1, is that his father made a gift of the suit land to his sons during his illness and four/five days before his death. His father was in debts. DW 2 Ani Rai is that Raja Mahmud gifted land having an areas of 70/80 bigbas in favour of his sons about 10/15 days before his death. The evidence of DW 3, Omaruddin is that about 10/15 days before his death, Raja Mahmud in the presence of the witnesses, said that he had gifted his property in favour of his sons. The evidence of DW 4 Safiuddin Sarkar is that Raja Mahmud said "I have gifted whatever property I have to my three sons". All the witnesses said that Raja Mahinud told his sons to look after their sisters. 4. Question then is,-What is a 'gift' under the Muslim Law ? The evidence of DW 4 Safiuddin Sarkar is that Raja Mahmud said "I have gifted whatever property I have to my three sons". All the witnesses said that Raja Mahinud told his sons to look after their sisters. 4. Question then is,-What is a 'gift' under the Muslim Law ? Accor­ding to Tyabji when a person governed by Muslim law signifies his willingness to make to another an immediate and unconditional transfer, without consideration, of the ownership of existing and specified property, he is said to make "a declaration of hiba". The person making the declara­tion of gift is called the "donor", the person in whose favour the gift is declared is called the "donee" and the property of rights of which the gift is mace is or are called the "subject of gift". When the donee signifies his assent, to the declaration of gift, he is said to "accept the gift". (See Tyabji's Muslim Law, 4th Edition). According to Mulla, a hiba or gift is "a transfer of property, made immediately, and without any exchange, by one person to another, and accepted by or on behalf of the latter. (See Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law, Eighteenth Edition). 5. A reading of the above definitions, in my judgment, a 'gift* under the Muslim or Mahomedan law is "a declaration made by one person called the 'donor' to make an immediate and unconditional transfer of certain existing property without consideration to another called the 'donee', and accepted by or on behalf of the “donee'." As observed by the Privy Council in Amjad Khan vs. Ashraf Khan, AIR 1929 PC 149, under the Muslim law there are three essentials for a valid gift inter vivos. They are: (1) a declaration of gift by the donor, (2) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and (3) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. If these conditions are complied with, the gilt is valid or complete. They are: (1) a declaration of gift by the donor, (2) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and (3) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. If these conditions are complied with, the gilt is valid or complete. As the three essentials of the gilt are 10 be proved, I am of the view that the word 'gift' is a legal expression to be inferred from facts and circumstances, and reproduction of the exact words made by the donor is required for examination whether the statement amounts to declaration of gift by the donor as well as for passing the test of the reproduction of the exact words to afford a piece of reliable evidence as to the gift. 6. The next question which arises for consideration is whether there is any evidence of gilt. A bare statement of the witness that Raja Mahmud made a gift, or had made a gift of the suit land in favour of his sons is not evidence of a gift unless facts relating to the essentials of a valid gift are stated. There is do reproduction of the statement of the donor from which it can be examined whether there was gift. The alleged gift is gift inter vivos and as such, it is an agreement or contract even if there is no consideration. Although an agreement made without consideration is invalid, any gift actually made is valid in view of the Explanation I appended to section 25 of the Indian Contract Act. The subject of gift may be burdened by an obligation, viz, onerous gift, and a donee is not bound to accept any gift. Therefore, there must be evidence of acceptance of the gift, express or implied, but in this case, there is no evidence, materials or circumstances to show that donees signified their acceptance of the gift, expressly or impliedly. For these reasons, there is no evidence or materials to show that Raja Mahmud made a gift in favour of his sons. Accordingly, finding of the lower appellate Court is based on no evidence and it cannot be sustained. 7. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the suit shall fail for the failure of the plaintiffs to state specifically the relief for declaration. Accordingly, finding of the lower appellate Court is based on no evidence and it cannot be sustained. 7. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the suit shall fail for the failure of the plaintiffs to state specifically the relief for declaration. The issue No. 2 relates to right or title to the suit land of the ' plaintiffs. The relief is covered by the issue by implication. The parties know that title was involved in the trial. That apart, it is admitted fact that the suit land belonged to Raja Mahmud. Since there was no gift of the suit land, the suit land devolved on daughters and sons, of Raja Mahmud after his death. The plaintiffs have also prayed for genera) or other relief. Considering the fact and circumstance of the case, I am of the view that the suit cannot be defeated on that ground. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the decree of the learned Munsiff is restored. No costs.