JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bathinda. 2. Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of 1/3rd share in the agricultural land measuring 301 kanals 15 marla situated in village Bhagi Bandar, detailed in the heading of the plaint, claiming herself to be the owner of the said land by virtue of gift deed dated 14.5.1951 allegedly executed by Gujjar Singh in her favour and also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property to any third person, in any manner, whatsoever. It was alleged that Gujjar Singh was the father of Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff whereas Smt. Dhan Kaur and Smt. Gurdial Kaur defendants were the widows of Maghar Singh, pre-deceased son of Gujjar Singh. It was alleged that said Gujjar Singh was the owner of 1/3rd share in the suit property and that during his lifetime, Gujjar Singh had executed a valid registered gift deed on 14.5.1951 in favour of the plaintiff and by virtue of the said gift deed, the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property, which had been carved out during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land, which was given to her by way of gift. It was alleged that the plaintiff remained in joint ownership with her co-sharers and that now about 3 years back, she had been dispossessed. It was alleged that the defendants took undue advantage of her absence from the village and illegally got the mutation of inheritance of Gujjar Singh sanctioned in their favour behind the back of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendants were well aware of the fact about the gift deed having been executed in her favour by Gujjar Singh in respect of the suit land but the defendants did not disclose this fact to the revenue authorities at the time of the attestation of the mutation. It was alleged that since the mutation does not confer title, the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. It was alleged that since the mutation does not confer title, the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. It was alleged that taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue records, the defendants were out to alienate the suit land. It was accordingly prayed that a decree for possession of 1/3rd share in the agricultural land measuring 301 kanal 15 marla detailed in the heading of the plaint be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants be restrained from alienating the suit property to any third person, in any manner, whatsoever. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, various preliminary objections including the question of limitation, locus standi and adverse possession were taken. On merits, it was alleged that the plaintiff was in no way related to Gujjar Singh deceased. It was further alleged that Gujjar Singh was never in possession of the agricultural land though he was the owner of 1/3rd share. It was further alleged that if the alleged gift deed was proved the same was without consideration and Gujjar Singh was not competent to execute the same as the property was of joint Hindu family. It was further alleged that the possession was never delivered to the plaintiff and she never come in possession of the suit land and even if any such gift deed was proved, the same had no legal value. It was further alleged that mutation in favour of the defendants had rightly been sanctioned as the defendants were the only legal heirs of Gujjar Singh deceased. It was further alleged that the defendants were competent to alienate the suit property being the absolute owner thereof. It was accordingly prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The plaintiff filed replication. Various issues were framed. Both the sides led evidence. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the gift deed dated 14.5.1951 was not a valid gift of the property in dispute and that the suit property had not been carved out of the land which was gifted by Gujjar Singh in favour of the plaintiff. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, upholding the findings of the Trial Court in this regard. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, upholding the findings of the Trial Court in this regard. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted before me that both the Courts below have given a categorical findings that the plaintiff was the daughter of Gujjar Singh deceased and that Gujjar Singh deceased had executed the gift deed dated 14.5.1951 Exhibit P1 in favour of the plaintiff. It has been submitted that in the light of these findings given by the Courts below, the Courts below had erred in law in deciding Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff. It was submitted that in the gift deed Exhibit P1, there was, a recital about delivery of possession and in any case, the land in question being joint with other co-sharers, the land was not capable of delivery of actual possession and that only ownership possession was delivered. It was submitted that delivery of possession was not necessary for proving the validity of the gift deed. It was further submitted that the Courts below had also erred in law in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit land measuring 301 kanal 15 marla has not been given during consolidation in lieu of the land, which was the subject matter of the gift deed dated 14.5.1951 Exhibit P1. 7. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. It is no doubt true that both the Courts below have given a categorical finding that Gujjar Singh deceased had executed the registered gift deed Exhibit P1 in favour of Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff on 14.5.1951. However, the question that comes up for consideration is as to whether in the absence of delivery of possession, such a gift should be termed as a valid gift or not. In 1976 Punjab Law Reporter 87 (DB), State of Punjab others v. Sant Singh, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the gift in this case would be covered by the principle of Hindu Law under which the delivery of possession is necessary for its validity. In 1976 Punjab Law Reporter 87 (DB), State of Punjab others v. Sant Singh, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the gift in this case would be covered by the principle of Hindu Law under which the delivery of possession is necessary for its validity. It was further held that "Gift" is a transfer of certain existing moveable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Inder Singh v. Nihar Kaur, AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 495. In the said authority, it was held that the possession regarding valid and effective gift being made in Punjab, in the absence of the application of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, appears to be the same under the Hindu Law as in the cases governed by the Customary Law. It was further held that in the case of the gift, because of non-delivery of possession the same was invalid. It was further held in the said authority that where the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act were not applicable to the gift in dispute the mere registration of the gift deed does not make the gift complete or effective. 8. Furthermore, in 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 185, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur v. Smt. Gulab Kaur, it was held by this Court that in case the gifted property was capable of physical possession, the non-delivery of the same makes the gift invalid. It was further held that a valid gift, therefore, must ordinarily be followed by possession. It was further held that the delivery of possession can prove the assent of the donor and mere assent in the gift deed cannot prove the factum of the delivery of possession of the gifted property. 9. It was further held that a valid gift, therefore, must ordinarily be followed by possession. It was further held that the delivery of possession can prove the assent of the donor and mere assent in the gift deed cannot prove the factum of the delivery of possession of the gifted property. 9. In view of the law laid down by the two Division Benches of this Court in AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 495 (supra) and 1976 Punjab Law Reporter 87 (supra) and the law laid down by a Single Bench of this Court in 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 185 (supra), in my opinion, the position of law is well settled that where the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable (as in the present case) in the absence of delivery of possession, it cannot be said that there was a valid gift. The authorities AIR 1927 Allahabad 345, Mt. Ahmadi Begam v. Abdul Aziz and others and AIR 1930 Allahabad 793, Sheikh Gausi and others v. Mohammad Sharif and others, relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case as the reported cases were under the Mohammadan law and not under Hindu Law. Similarly, the law laid down by this Court in AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 174, Tirath v. Manmohan Singh and others, in my opinion, would also be of no help to the appellant, in view of the law laid down by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases referred to above. 10. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that in fact, the plaintiff was ever put in possession of the land in dispute. Except the bald testimony of the plaintiff in this regard, no other evidence had been produced to prove the delivery of possession. On the other hand, the defendant-respondents had produced revenue record to prove that in fact, Gujjar Singh deceased had not delivered possession of any portion of the land in question to the plaintiff by virtue of the aforesaid gift deed dated 14.5.1951. In the Khasra Girdawari Exhibit D3 for the year 1951-52, nowhere, the plaintiff was recorded in possession of any part of the land in dispute or even in joint possession thereof. In the Khasra Girdawari Exhibit D3 for the year 1951-52, nowhere, the plaintiff was recorded in possession of any part of the land in dispute or even in joint possession thereof. In the Jamabandi for the year 1950-51 contained in the excerpt produced on the record, Gujjar Singh donor, though a co-sharer in the larger area, was shown in exclusive possession of 62 bighas and 3 biswas of land covered by Khewat No. 610 and Khatauni No. 993. The gift deed is dated 14.5.1951. As per death certificate Exhibit D1, he died on 10.8.1951 and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the defendants vide Exhibit D2 in August, 1951 itself. As referred to above, Gujjar Singh defendant was in exclusive possession of a part of the joint holding, inasmuch as the same was under his self-cultivation as per Jamabandi for the year 1950-51. Under these circumstances, at least that portion of the property, which was in actual physical possession of Gujjar Singh deceased at the time of the execution of the gift deed was capable of actual delivery of possession at the time of gift being a co-sharer in the joint holding. However, except making an entry in the gift deed regarding delivery of possession, there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that Gujjar Singh had ever delivered possession of the land measuring 62 Bighas 3 Biswas (of which he was in exclusive possession), to the plaintiff at the time of the execution and registration of the gift deed dated 14.5.1951. That being so, it would be clear that the gift deed dated 14.5.1951 Exhibit P1 was not followed by delivery of possession even in respect of the land, which was in exclusive possession of Gujjar Singh at the relevant time. Furthermore, even in respect of the said land or the remaining land, there is nothing on the record to show that Gujjar Singh had ever delivered the symbolic possession of the land to Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff at the time of the execution of the gift deed in her favour. The mere statement of Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff that the possession was delivered to her, in my opinion, had rightly not been accepted by the courts below, taking into consideration various contradictions in her statement. The mere statement of Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff that the possession was delivered to her, in my opinion, had rightly not been accepted by the courts below, taking into consideration various contradictions in her statement. As referred to above, in the plaint she had pleaded that possession was taken from her by the defendants about 3 years prior to the filing of the suit. However, while appearing in the witness box, she had stated that the defendants used to give her share of the produce which they had stopped about 7-8 years back. She further stated that the land in question was in possession of Kartar Singh and Jang Singh prior to the gift and they had atoned to her. However, as referred to above, no such plea was taken by the plaintiff in this regard and as such this part of the evidence being beyond pleading cannot be accepted. Both the Courts below after considering the entire evidence, led by the parties found that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove that the possession over the suit land was ever delivered to her by Gujjar Singh deceased at the time of the execution of the gift deed dated 14.5.1951 in her favour. In the light of the evidence available on the record in this regard, in my opinion, it could not be said that the possession was delivered to her merely because there was a recital in this regard in the gift deed Exhibit P1. The Authority AIR 1932 Privy Council Page 13, Nawab Mirza Mohammad Sadiq Ali Khan and others v. Nawab Fakr Jahan Begam and another, relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case, especially when there was no evidence on the record to show that the possession was ever delivered to the plaintiff. 11. As referred to above, both the Courts below had also found it as a fact that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the land in dispute measuring 301 kanal 15 marla was in lieu of the land measuring 116 bighas 16 biswas. According to the gift deed Exhibit P1, Gujjar Singh deceased had gifted his 1/3 share in the land measuring 116 bighas and 16 biswas to the plaintiff Smt. Nihal Kaur. According to the gift deed Exhibit P1, Gujjar Singh deceased had gifted his 1/3 share in the land measuring 116 bighas and 16 biswas to the plaintiff Smt. Nihal Kaur. The plaintiff had filed the present suit claiming the possession over 1/3rd share in the land measuring 301 kanal 15 marla with the allegation that the said land measuring 301 kanal 15 marla was in lieu of the land measuring 116 bighas 16 biswas. However, as per the excerpt Exhibit RW4/A, which was got prepared by the plaintiff, the aforesaid 301 kanal 15 marla land was allotted in lieu of the land measuring 178 Bighas 19 biswas covered by various khewats and khatauni numbers, which were different from the land measuring 116 bighas 16 biswas, which was gifted by Gujjar Singh to the plaintiff. Only the land covered by khewat No. 410 (except khasra Nos. 398 and 925) was the subject matter of gift deed whereas land in dispute measuring 301 kanal 15 marla was not only in lieu of the said land measuring 116 bighas 16 biswas but in lieu of the total land measuring 191 bighas 2 biswas. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, both the Courts below, were perfectly justified in holding that it was not proved that the entire land in dispute was allotted in lieu of the gifted land. On the contrary the gifted land had merged in the other land in lieu of which the present land was carved out at the time of consolidation. That being so, it could not be said that the suit land was given during consolidation in lieu of the land which was gifted by Gujjar Singh in favour of the plaintiff. 12. In view of the detailed discussion above, I affirm the findings of the Courts below on Issue No. 1. 13. It was then submitted before me by the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant that the plaintiff being a daughter of Gujjar Singh deceased, in any case, was entitled to a share in the property left by him by way of inheritance and that the mutation of the entire land in favour of the defendants was contrary to law. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant. Firstly, no such plea had been taken by the plaintiff in the plaint that in any case, she was entitled to inherit a part of the suit property by way of inheritance. Secondly, in my opinion, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any such declaration since all the legal heirs of Gujjar Singh had not been impleaded as parties in the present suit. In fact, in the plaint, it had nowhere been pleaded as to who were the other legal heirs of Gujjar Singh deceased besides the plaintiff and the defendants, who are to inherit the property. In the absence thereof, it cannot be known as to how much share the plaintiff is entitled to inherit (being the daughter of Gujjar Singh deceased) on the death of Gujjar Singh. PW3 Chanan Singh was examined by the plaintiff in support of her case. During cross-examination, he categorically stated that Gujjar Singh had five daughters and one son and that out of them only two daughters were alive. Even PW6 Smt. Nihal Kaur plaintiff had herself stated that besides herself, one sister of hers was alive. During further cross-examination, she had stated that they were five sisters out of whom 3 had died during the lifetime of her father. In the light of the evidence led by the plaintiff herself that they were five sisters out of whom three had died, in my opinion, no declaration regarding inheritance of the plaintiff could be given in the present suit, especially when it is not known as to who are the persons who were entitled to succeed Gujjar Singh deceased at the time of his death. This is essentially so when all the legal heirs of Gujjar Singh have not been impleaded as parties in the present suit. No other point has been urged before me in this appeal. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.