( 1 ) THE defendant-State of madhya Pradesh has assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent. ( 2 ) ON 20-11-1993 plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he is owner and is in possession of the suit property, description whereof is given in the plaint. According to the plaint averments, originally the suit property was owned and possessed by Maharaja Bhawani singh Joo Deo, who was Ex-Ruler of chhatarpur and the suit property was his personal property. In the year 1961 the said ruler gifted the suit property to plaintiff and he was also put in possession. On 21-12-1990 a formal registered gift deed was duly executed by the Ex-Ruler in favour of plaintiff. According to plaintiff, the suit land is not a Government land and plaintiff is in possession of the suit land continuously as owner since 1961. The Nazul Officer of chhatarpur tried to allot the suit land to one Lakhanlal Tiwari on lease in Revenue case No. 13/a-20/1/91-92 in which plaintiff submitted objections before the Nazul officer. However, they were dismissed on 25-6-1993. While rejecting the objections of plaintiff, the Nazul Officer held that the suit property is a Government land and not a private land. According to plaintiff, suit land is not a Government land but was the private property of ex-ruler and the Nazul Officer had no jurisdiction to grant lease of the same to others and in case lease is granted it would cause irreparable injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed adverse possession on the suit property. A notice under section 80, CPC was sent on 30-8-93 which was duly served on 3-9-93 and thereafter the present suit has been filed. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT-APPELLANT resisted the suit by liling written statement denying the adverse averments contained in the plaint and pleaded therein that the proceedings before the Nazul Officer were perfectly valid and legal and the Nazul Officer was justified in declaring the suit land is a Government land. It has been emphatically denied that the suit land is a private land. ( 4 ) THE trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence decreed the suit of plaintiff and declared that he is the owner having possession of the suit land. A decree of perpetual injunction is also passed restraining defendants from alienating the suit property to any other person by issuing patta. ( 4 ) THE trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence decreed the suit of plaintiff and declared that he is the owner having possession of the suit land. A decree of perpetual injunction is also passed restraining defendants from alienating the suit property to any other person by issuing patta. Hence this appeal. ( 5 ) THE contention of Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate is that there is nothing on record to show that the suit property was the private property of the Ex-Ruler and he was in possession of it and, therefore, even if it is held that suit property was gifted to the plaintiff by the Ex-Ruler, it would not confer and pass any legal title in him. It has been further contended by him that as per the case of plaintiff in the year 1961 the Ex-Ruler gifted the suit property to plaintiff and in that regard plaintiff had filed Ex. P-l, but the said document is inadmissible in evidence as it is not a registered document. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has also challenged the finding arrived at by the trial Court while deciding Issue no. 4 that plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession. On these premised submissions it has been prayed by the learned dy. G. A. that this appeal may be allowed and the suit of plaintiff may be dismissed. ( 6 ) ON the other hand Shri K. N. Agrawal. learned senior eounsel argued in support of the impugned judgment. ( 7 ) SO far as question of 'adverse possession' is concerned, suffice it to state that in the plaint, firstly the plaintiff has come up and pleaded his case on the basis of title conferred to him by the gift deed. Yet he has pleaded that since he is in possession of the suit property from 1961 as a owner in the knowledge of all, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. On going through the averments made in the plaint, one cannot say that there is sufficient pleading in order to arrest and hold that plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession. Merely as it is stated by the plaintiff that he is possessing the suit property since 1961 as owner, would not be sufficient in order to hold that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Merely as it is stated by the plaintiff that he is possessing the suit property since 1961 as owner, would not be sufficient in order to hold that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff has not at all pleaded that whether his possession was peaceful and continuous in the knowledge of the defendant as a owner or not. According to me, the essential facts constituting the adverse possession are lacking from the plaint, as such, de jure plaintiff cannot say that he had perfected his title on the suit property by adverse possession. Apart from this, there is no whisper in regard to the adverse possession in the testimony of plaintiff. He has not at all stated anything in that regard. Simply he had stated that he is possessing the suit property since 1961 on the basis of gift given to him by the Ex-Ruler. In order to demonstrate his possession from 1961, except Ex. P-l which is an unregistered document of gift deed, no other document has been filed by the plaintiff. Thus, it is very difficult to hold on the basis of bald statement of plaintiff that he is possessing the suit property since 1961. True, plaintiff has submitted rent note (Ex. P-7) by which the plaintiff has given his plot to Chandra prakash Sharma on 1-1-1974 on rental basis. However, there is no pleading in that regard that plaintiff ever gave the suit property on rent to Chandra Prakash Sharma nor there is anything on record that this rent note was in the knowledge of defendant. In absence of essential ingredients to constitute plea of adverse possession in the plaint as well as in absence ot any evidence of plaintiff in this regard, according to me. the trial Court erroneously held that plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Apart from this, it would be appropriate to mention here that plaintiff may take an alternative plea in the plaint, but he has to choose a definite stand while adducing the evidence. Since there is no whisper in the testimony of the plaintiff about the perfection of title by adverse possession and he has adduced his entire evidence on the basis of title, according to me, he has chosen and has adopted the stand to prove his case on the basis of gift deed and not by adverse possession. Since there is no whisper in the testimony of the plaintiff about the perfection of title by adverse possession and he has adduced his entire evidence on the basis of title, according to me, he has chosen and has adopted the stand to prove his case on the basis of gift deed and not by adverse possession. Thus, on this ground also it can be said that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title by adverse possession. ( 8 ) ON going through the averments made in the plaint it is perceivable that the plaintiff is coming with a definite case that Ex-Ruler of Chhatarpur gave the suit property to him in the year 1961 by a gift deed (Ex. P-l) and thereafter on 21-12-90 the said Ex-Ruler executed another document of gift deed (Ex. P-2) which is a registered document. On going through document Ex. P-l it cannot be said that a valid title is conveyed to the plaintiff by this document. On going through this document it is revealed that there is no proper description of the gifted property. It has been simply stated that a plot admeasuring 40' x 55' which is beneath the State Guest House and adjoining to quarter of Cook and in the eastern side of which there is Sagar-Nowgoan road, is being gifted. There is no map attached to this document mentioning that which property is being gifted; there is no proper description of lour boundaries: this document does not contain whether donor is the owner of the property which is being gifted to plaintiff; no specific date has been mentioned and only "jeth 1961" is mentioned; this document is not attested by any witness; factum of giving possession is totally lacking from this document and thus it cannot be said that plaintiff on the basis of this document, is possessing the suit property since 1961 and Ex. P/1 is a valid gift deed conveying a valid title to the plaintiff. ( 9 ) APART from what 1 have stated hereinabove, ex. P-1 is not a registered document. The "gift" has been defined in Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which means the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behali of the donee. P-1 is not a registered document. The "gift" has been defined in Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which means the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behali of the donee. Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. On going through ex. P-1 it is revealed that there is nothing in this document in order to show that it was accepted by the donee. In evidence plaintiff- Ramkurnar (P. W. 1) has not stated that he accepted the gift. Thus the ingredients of Section 122 of the T. P. Act are not complete. Apart from this, Section 123 of the T. P. Act provides that for the purpose of making a gift of imrnoveable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses. Neither Ex. P-l is a registered document. nor it is attested by two witnesses nor there is any endorsement of any acceptance of the gift by the donee (plaintiff ). In this view of the matter, according to me. there was no valid conveyance and the suit property was not conveyed by way of gift to the plaintiff by the Ex-Ruler and Ex. P-1 is not a valid gift deed. ( 10 ) APART from what I have said hereinabove there are certain more clouds which are covering the title of plaintiff. The question is whether in the month of Jeth (corresponding month May-June) of the year 1961 the Ex-Ruler was the owner of the suit property. Though plaintiff-Ramkurnar (P. W. 1) as well as Ex-Ruler Bhawani Singh (P. W. 4)have stated that the suit property was a private properly of the Ex-Ruler, but there is no corresponding corroborative document in that regard. In absence of any document in this regard, it is very difficult to hold that the suit property was a private property of ex-Ruler of Chhatarpur and he gifted it to the plaintiff. If the property was gifted to the plaintiff in the year 1961, what was the occasion to execute another registered gift deed (Ex. P-2) by the Ex-Ruler on 21-12-1990. If the property was gifted to the plaintiff in the year 1961, what was the occasion to execute another registered gift deed (Ex. P-2) by the Ex-Ruler on 21-12-1990. Though it has been mentioned in this document that Bhawani Singh is having ownership right and therefore, the suit property is being gifted to plaintiff, but in absence of any revenue/municipal record and other documents, it would be very difficult to hold that the suit property was the private property of the Ex-Ruler of Chhatarpur. ( 11 ) IN view of above, since it is not proved that the suit property was the private property of Ex-Ruler, no valid title is conveyed to the plaintiff by way of any gift deed The trial court without taking into consideration of all these material aspects of the case erroneously decreed the suit of the plaintiff. ( 12 ) IN the result, (his appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .