JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—This Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14th Match, 1989, of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : 1.. In the areas, where section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable, whether gift to be valid must be followed by delivery of possession if the donor is in possession and is capable of giving delivery of possession and whether mutation in the name of donee alone is sufficient ? 2. Whether delivery of possession is necessary Hindu Law, if the parties are governed by Hindu Law, to make oral gift complete especially when the provisions of section 123 of Transfer of Property Act were not applicable ? 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute It was averred that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and that in the month of April !98O, on obtaining the copies of the revenue record, it was revealed that the land in dispute has been wrongly mutated in favour of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1) It was further averred that the revenue entires showing the land in dispute under the ownership and possession of defendant No 1 were wrong and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff In the alternative, it was averred that in case defendant No 1 is found to be in possession of the land in dispute, a decree for possession may be passed. 3. Defendant No, 3, vide his written statement has admitted the claim and suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No, 2 has denied the averments of the plaintiff and has stated that a part of the land in dispute was mortgaged with him by defendant No. 1, which mortgage stood redeemed and that he has never been in possession of the land in dispute It is further pointed out by defendant No 2 that defendant No, 3 Jagat Singh, has been in possession of the land in dispute. 4. 4. Defendant No I, while resisting and contesting the suit of the plaintiff has asserted herself to be the owner and in possession of the land in dispute It was averred that the land in dispute was gifted in her favour by defendant No 3 vide mutation No. 176 dated 31st December, 1910. Such mutation of gift was never challenged either by way of appeal or revision by the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is now estopped from challenging the same Further case of defendant No, 1 is that the alleged gift pertaining to the year 1961 alleged lo have been made by defendant No 3 in favour of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void, inasmuch as the same was not followed by possession Alternatively, it was pleaded that defendant No. 3 was the attorney of the plaintiff whereby he was authorised to deal with the land in dispute in any manner he deemed fit. Acting as general attorney for the plaintiff defendant No. 3 Jagat Singh was competent to execute a gift in favour of defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff has also attorned all the acts of his attorney. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: I Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land ? OPP II. In case the plaintiff is held to be the owner of the suit land and not in possession, then in it circumstances, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land in the alternative ? OPP III. Whether the defendant No, 3 was the owner of the suit land at the time of making the gift dated 31-12-1970 vide mutation No 176? OPD IV Whether defendant No. 3 executed a valid gift dated 31-12-1970 in favour of the defendant No I, if so its effect ? OPD V If issue No 3 not proved, whether defendant No. 3 was the attorney of the plaintiff at the time of making the gift of the suit land vide mutation No 176 dated 3M2-1970 ? OPD VI Whether the plaintiff is estopped to impeach the said gift by his act and conduct ? OPD VI-A Whether the suit is time barred as the plaintiff failed to challenge mutation No. 176 dated 31-12-1970 sanctioned in favour of the defendant No 1, as alleged ? OPD VI Whether the plaintiff is estopped to impeach the said gift by his act and conduct ? OPD VI-A Whether the suit is time barred as the plaintiff failed to challenge mutation No. 176 dated 31-12-1970 sanctioned in favour of the defendant No 1, as alleged ? OPD VI-B. Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3, as alleged, if so, its effect ? OPD VI-C Whether the gift in respect of the suit land sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1961 is no gift in the eyes of law hence illegal and void, as alleged ? OPD 6 The leaned trial Court found Issue No 1 in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute Issue No II was held to have become redundant Issues No. Ill to VI, Vi-A, VI B and vi-C, were found against defendant No I. Consequent upon such findings, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1987 and the plaintiff was declared to be the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. The appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was carried before the Additional District Judge by defendant No 1. The said appeal was dismissed on 14th March, 1989, by the learned Additional District Judge and the judgment and decree on the trial Court were affirmed. 7. I have beard Mr. Bhupender Gupta with Mr. Praneet Gupta counsel for the appellant/defendant No. I and Mr. D K Khanna, Advocate, learned Counsel for plaintiff/respondent No. 1. 8. Learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 has contended that at the relevant time, when the gift qua the land in dispute was alleged to have been made in favour of the plaintiff, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 were not applicable in the area in which the land in dispute is situated. Therefore, a gift could be made only under the provisions of the general Hindu Law applicable to the parties. Therefore, a gift could be made only under the provisions of the general Hindu Law applicable to the parties. It was further contended that though under the general Hindu Law a gift could be orally made, such gift could be held valid only when it is shown that the same was accompanied by the delivery of possession by the donor to the donee. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on paragraph 358 of Mulla Principles of Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, at page 476, wherein it is provided that a gift under pure Hindu law need not be in writing. But a gift under that law is not valid unless it is accompanied by delivery of possession of the subject of the gift from the donor to the donee The learned Counsel has further placed reliance on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur v. Smt. Gulab Kaur, AIR 1977 P & H 257, wherein it has been held that under the Hindu Law delivery of possession in the case of gift is necessary and that non-delivery makes the gift invalid. 9. It is significant to note that the gift made by defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiff vide mutation Ex. P-l dated 27th November, 1962 stands admitted by defendant No, 3 in written statement as well as while appearing as a witness for the plaintiff as PW 2. Besides, in the present case, the said gift is not being challenged by the donor. In the case of Mukhtiar Kaurs case (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for appellant/defendant No. 1, the gift was challenged by the donor herself by averring that the gift was not followed by possession and, therefore, invalid. The said principle of law is not applicable to a case where the validity of the gift is being challenged by a third person on the ground that the gift was not followed by possession. 10. The said principle of law is not applicable to a case where the validity of the gift is being challenged by a third person on the ground that the gift was not followed by possession. 10. In Kalt Dass Mullick v. Kanhya Lal Pundit, XI Indian Appeals 218, where the gift was challenged by a person claiming to be in adverse possession of the property gifted, it was held that in the case where the dispute to the validity to the gift is not between a donee and the donor or a person claiming under the donor, it is not open to the third party to challenge the validity of the gift on the ground that it was not followed by possession. The donor in the said case was also defendant and he had affirmed the validity of the gift. In the present case, as well, the dispute qua the validity of the gift by defendant No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff is not between the donee and the donor or a person claiming under the donor. Besides, the donor, who is a defendant in the case, as stated above, has admitted the validity of the gift in his written statement as well as while appearing as PW 2 Therefore, the gift by defendant No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff vide mutation Ex. P-l, is valid and it is not open to challenge by defendant No. 1 on the ground of non-delivery of possession of the land in dispute by defendant No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Further, it is significant to note that it has come in evidence that the gift made by defendant No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff was followed by possession. Defendant No, 3, while appearing as PW 2 has categorically denied the suggestion put to him by defendant No, 1 that the possession of the land in dispute was never delivered to the plaintiff A perusal of the mutation Ex. P-l further shows that the possession of the land in dispute consequent upon the gift by defendant No 3 in favour of plaintiff was I delivered to the donee, that is plaintiff. 12. P-l further shows that the possession of the land in dispute consequent upon the gift by defendant No 3 in favour of plaintiff was I delivered to the donee, that is plaintiff. 12. The alternative case of the defendant No. 1 is that assuming that a valid gift was executed by defendant No 3 in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, the plaintiff became the owner of the land in dispute, a subsequent gift vide mutation No. 176 dated 31st December, 19/0 (Ex. D 2) was made by defendant No. 3 acting as a general attorney for the plaintiff. Therefore, defendant No. 1 by virtue of the said gift became the owner and in possession of the land in dispute Be it stated, that during the course of hearing of appeal before the first appellate Court, it was conceded by defendant No, 1 that defendant No. 3 was not holding any general power of attorney behalf of the plaintiff That being the case, it cannot be said that the gift vide Ex. D-2 by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. I was valid, since defendant No. 3 was not either the owner of the land in dispute or an attorney of the plaintiff. 13. No other point was urged before me. 14. As a result, the present fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed.