Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. This revision application is directed against, the order dated 18.9.92 passed in Title Execution case No. 11/855 filed by the decree holders Ramni Mohan Das and Rani Devi whereby and whereunder the petitioner Madhurani Singh has been substituted at the place of decree holders Ramni Mohan Das, Logan Chandra Das, Smt. Nunumani Devi, Smt. Veena Devi and Sri Anant Prasad Das for their 6-1/4 decimals share in the decree and the O.P. No. 1 Subhas Chandra Ghosh has been substituted at the place of decree holder Shankar Prasad Das and Smt. Rani Devi for their 8-3/4 decimals share in the decree. The Court below ordered that the instant decree be executed accordingly with convenience of Subhash Chandra Ghosh to select the side of the house according to his choice and convenience after which 6-1/4 decimals of petitioner be delivered in her possession. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that opposite second party obtained a decree against one Roop Narayan Ghosh father of O.P. No. 1 in T.A. No. 9/71. The decree jointly passed in favour of both the decree holders was for recovery of possession of 15 decimals of land in mouza Bogaria in the district of Banks. On 12.10.87 Rani Devi (decree holder) executed sale deed in respect of her interest in the suit land in favour of O.P. No. 1 (son of the judgment debtor) which was registered at Araria. The petitioner claims that on 11.11.87 both Ramni Mohan and Rani Devi executed a registered sale deed transferring the suit land to her. Having executed the sale deed both Ramni Mohan and Rani Devi ceased to take any step in the execution case. Petitioner applied for substitution in the execution case for execution of the entire decree. Subsequently O.P. No. 1 also filed a similar application claiming substitution in place of Rani Devi for execution of the decree in respect of the share of Rani Devi. O.P. No. 1 also raised objection with respect to the Claire of the petitioner for execution of the entire decree in her favour. The petitioner also questioned status of O.P. No. 1 as representative of the decree holder. By the impugned order the Court allowed partial execution in favour of both as already mentioned above. 3. It has been contended by Mr. Chatterji, learned Sr. The petitioner also questioned status of O.P. No. 1 as representative of the decree holder. By the impugned order the Court allowed partial execution in favour of both as already mentioned above. 3. It has been contended by Mr. Chatterji, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the land in question is situated in Mouza Bogaria in the district of Banka, but the alleged sale deed with respect to it in favour of O.P. No. 1 was fraudulently registered at Araria by including a bit of property lying within the Sub-Registry of Araria, i.e. plot No. 501 of Khata No. 45. According to him, in the record of right there is no such plot under Khata No. 45 in which one Bibi Serajul had 3 annas interest. Rani Devi, the vendor of O.P. No. 1 claimed interest in the said land under a deed of gift executed by Bibi Serajul. The deed which was produced by O.P. No. 1 shows that the same is unregistered. It is submitted that under Sec. 17(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, a Deed of Gift of whatever value has to be registered. According to Mr. Chatterji, it is true that Muslims can make an oral Hiba, but if a Deed is executed, then it must be registered. 4. Sec. 123 of the transfer of Property Act does not permit an oral gift. However, Sec. 129 saves an oral Hiba under the Mohammedan law, but a Hibanama is not saved under the Registration Act. Under Sec. 49 of the Registration Act an unregistered Deed cannot be looked into for any purpose. Under Sec. 92 of the Evidence Act if there is a Deed, oral evidence is forbidden in respect of any term of the transaction or disposition of property. Thus, according to him, Rani Devi cannot have any interest even in plot No. 2978 of Khata No. 45 within the jurisdiction of Araria Sub-Registry. Consequently, the registration in respect of suit property was a fraud upon registration and in any view of the matter, when plot No. 501 does not exist in Khata No. 45, the sale deed executed in favour of O.P. No. 1 was invalid and as such, according to him, the O.P. No. 1 has no locus standi in the execution proceedings. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Dwivedi, learned Sr. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Dwivedi, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the submission of Mr. Chatterji is completely misplaced. Nonetheless, once it is admitted by him that Muslims can make an oral Hiba the claim of interest of Rani Devi over the land bearing plot No, 2978 on the basis of gift from Bibi Serajul cannot be overlooked only because the alleged Deed produced by O.P. No. 1 is an unregistered one. In this regard he referred to Sec. 147 of the Mohammedan law, wherein it is provided that writing is not essential to the validity of the gift either of movable or immovable property. He also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Salim Hasim V/s. Abdul Fateh reported in . 6. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Dwivedi. The question raised in the decision of the Division Bench was that where there was actual delivery of possession, the mere fact that the donor lives in the house is not enough to hold that there was no delivery of possession. No physical departure or formal entry is necessary in the case of a gift of immovable property, in which donor and donce are both residing at the time of a gift and in such a case the gift may be completed by the donor by giving a clear indication on his part to transfer possession and to divest himself of all control over the subject of the gift. It is true that Sec. 147 of the Mohammedan Law provides that writing is not essential to the validity of a gift either of movable or of immovable property and that there are three essentials of a gift under Mohammedan law namely, (i) a declaration of a 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. If these conditions are fulfilled, the gift is complete. 7. If these conditions are fulfilled, the gift is complete. 7. However, in the instant case, it is not the case of the opposite parties that Bibi Serajul made any oral Hiba in favour of Rani Devi under which she acquired right to sell it to O.P. No. 1, In case of oral Hiba registration may not be required, but if there is a Deed executed for giving any immovable property in gift to someone, then it can only be by registered document inasmuch as, an oral Hiba has to be followed by delivery of possession, which alone can constitute valid transfer under the Mohammedan Law and as such, where the claim of gift based on execution of a Deed, then in the absence of anything on record to show that it was followed by delivery of possession, the same cannot effect transfer of any immovable property. Sec. 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that no document required by Sec. 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) to be registered shall-(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, (b) confer any power to adopt or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such proerty or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. Under the said provision, the instrument of gift of immovable property is one of the documents with respect of which the registration is required in a district, in which it is situated Mr. Dwivedi has failed to point out that there is any provision in Mohammedan Law, under which the gift by execution of Deed is excluded from its registration under the Registration Act in order to affect the transfer of the property gifted under the provision of the Transfer of Property Act, Sec. 129 only saves oral Hiba under the Mohammedan Law from registration under the Registration Act, but once Hibanama (Deed) is executed the provisions contained in Sec. 129 of the Mohammedan Law, in my opinion, will not be attracted. In any view of the matter, registration of the sale deed in favour of O.P. No. 1 by Rani Devi cannot be held to be valid inasmuch as no property bearing plot No. 501 in Khata No. 45 admittedly exists at Araria, where the registration of the said Deed which also included the property in question lying in the district of Banka was executed. As such in the absence of any such plot, the Sub-Registrar,. Araria had no jurisdiction to register the sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 1 with respect to the land in question, which he claims to have purchased from Rani Devi situated in the district of Banka. 8. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent whereby and whereunder the Court has directed for substitution of O.P. No. 1 in place of the decree holder Shankar Prasad Das and Smt. Rani Devi for their 8-3/4 share in the decree and also directed for execution of the decree accordingly with the convenience of O.P. No. 1 to select the side of the house according to his choice. However, as I am informed that Rani Devi disputes the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration of the execution case in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.