( 1 ) THE appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal under Section 100 of C. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1993 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge chhindwara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 30-A/1989 affirming the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent by 3rd Civil judge Class-II, Chhindwara in Civil Original Suit No. 537-A/88 vide, dated 24-12-1988. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent/being minor through his next friend the mother Shakila Begum has filed a suit for declaration to hold the sale deed dated 11-1-1980 as null and void executed by Mohd. Yusuf the father of respondents in favour of the predecessor of the appellant Abdul Raheem and also for possession of the house the subject-matter of said deed situated on his agricultural land bearing survey No. 790, area 0. 040 hector at village Junnardeo. As per averments of the plaint Abdul Nazir the grand father of the respondent being sole owner and bhumiswami of the property had given the same to respondent by Bakshishnama dated 10-3-1977. The possession of the property was also delivered to him through his father as he was minor of one year only, since then he was remained in possession of it. Due to some family dispute and mental disease of the father of respondent, the mother of respondent along with respondent has left the village, subsequent to it for taking advantage of such situation, the predecessor of appellants Abdul Raheem fraudulently with conspiracy has got registered sale deed of the said house in his favour from Mohd. Yusuf vide dated 11-1-1980. Such document was never executed in the interest and welfare of the respondent. Even said Mohd. Yusuf was not authorised to execute the same on his behalf as he did not have any saleable right of it. Thus, the sale deed was ab initio void and did not confer any right or interest to the appellant in respect of the property of the respondent. Hence the transaction was not binding against the respondent. The requisite permission or sanction from the District Court in this regard has also not been taken, thus it was ab initio void. On coming to know about such transaction the suit was filed as said above. Hence the transaction was not binding against the respondent. The requisite permission or sanction from the District Court in this regard has also not been taken, thus it was ab initio void. On coming to know about such transaction the suit was filed as said above. ( 3 ) IN the written statement of the appellants it is contended that the aforesaid property is inherited by Mohd. Yusuf from his father as he was the only son, legal representative of Abdul Nazir. The same was purchased by said Abdul Reheem vide registered sale deed it could not be challenged by the respondent. The contention regarding mental disease of Mohd Yusuf and differences with his wife have been denied. The suit was filed by Mohd. Yusuf with the collusion of his wife only to borrow the money from the appellant by creating undue pressure on him. The appellant being bona fide purchaser of the property is entitled to protect his interest as owner and Bhumiswami. The said transaction had taken place with the consent of the respondent's mother but subsequently on enhancing the value and price of land the suit was filed with mala fide intention only to borrow some additional money from appellant. The same is not filed on proper valuation with proper Court-fees according to the prevalent market value of it. The suit has not been filed by competent person the natural guardian as such the suit is not maintainable. ( 4 ) IN view of aforesaid pleadings issues were framed and evidence was recorded by the trial Court and on appreciation of the same it was held that the aforesaid transaction got it done by Abdul Reheem from Yusuf ali by taking advantage of his physical and mental disability by creating the pressure and fraud on him. It is further held that yusuf Ali did not have any authority to enter in such transaction. Consequently, by declaring the sale deed as ab initio void the suit was decreed for possession also. The same was challenged in the subordinate appellate Court where by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this appeal was preferred. Consequently, by declaring the sale deed as ab initio void the suit was decreed for possession also. The same was challenged in the subordinate appellate Court where by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this appeal was preferred. It was admitted for hearing on following substantial question of law : "whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court is vitiated on account of misreading the document P. I. ?" ( 5 ) SHRI A. S. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant by submitting the aforesaid facts mentioned in the written statement has submitted that the property was belonging to Abdul Nazir the grandfather of respondent and as alleged the same was given to respondent vide Bakshisnama Ex. P. 1, dated 10-3-1977 but the same has not been proved by admissible evidence, in spite it was relief on in passing the decree by the courts below contrary to the settled legal position. According to him, as per this document the possession of the property was not handed over to respondent in accordance with the shariat of the Mohammedan Law. He conceded that all the parties of the case are governed by the Mohammedan Law, on holding the said Bakshisnama as inadmissible document the Mohd. Yusuf from whom he purchased the property was the only owner of it who inherited the same from his father, thus the sale deed executed by Mohd. Yusuf is binding not only against the father of respondent but on respondent also. It was also said that by virtue of sale deed vide dated 1-1-1980, he purchased the property as bona fide purchaser from Yusuf Ali and such transaction could not be challenged by the respondent. He placed his reliance for discarding the Hiba on a decided case of the Apex Court in the manner of Mahboob sahab v. Syed Ismail, reported in AIR 1995 sc 1205 , and submitted that in order to prove the Hiba three ingredients are necessary, the proposal and declaration of it and the acceptance of the person concerned in whose favour it is performed and the delivery of the possession of the property for which the Hiba was proposed. The same have not been proved in instant case by admissible evidence or documents, thus, the theory of Hiba put forth by the respondent could not have been relied on by Courts below. The same have not been proved in instant case by admissible evidence or documents, thus, the theory of Hiba put forth by the respondent could not have been relied on by Courts below. The suit was liable to be dismissed but the evidence was not appreciated in accordance with law for passing the decree, hence the decree is perverse and prayed for answering the question in favour of the appellant. He also referred some provisions of mohammedan Law from the book edited by mulla. ( 6 ) ON responding the aforesaid argument, Shri Dinesh Agrawal learned counsel for the respondent by mentioning the averments of plaint as mentioned in the plaint described in the earlier part of the order has submitted that all the ingredients of Hiba have been found to be proved by the Courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. According to him the hiba was performed as per provisions of the mohammedan Law and all the ingredients of it as directed by the Apex Court in aforesaid decision are apparent in Ex. P. 1 and the same cannot be held to be inadmissible on account of the objection taken by the appellants. According to him the evidence available on record was properly appreciated by the Courts below, hence no perversity or error or illegality have been committed in decreeing the suit. ( 7 ) HAVING heard learned counsels for the respective parties on perusing the record, it appears from Ex. P-1 the Bakshisnama executed by the grand father of respondent in his favour has been proved by attesting witnesses Mohd. Taiyab (P. W. 1) and Salam ahmed (P. W. 3 ). It is further supported by the testimony of Mst. Saida Begum (P. W. 2), the next friend and mother of respondent as the then he was minor. The same is written on embossed stamp paper which could be one of circumstance to draw the inference regarding its genuineness. Beside the aforesaid as per provision of Section 147 of mohammedan Law edited by Mulla in 19th edition the document in writing is not essential to the validity of gift (Hiba) either for movable or immovable property. While in the case at hand the Ex. P. 1 has been proved by admissible evidence. Such evidence has not been destroyed or rebutted by the appellants in any manner. While in the case at hand the Ex. P. 1 has been proved by admissible evidence. Such evidence has not been destroyed or rebutted by the appellants in any manner. ( 8 ) THAT meter reading of Ex. P. 1 shows all ingredients of Hiba that the proposal and declaration of it by the executor and the delivery of the possession of the property to the respondents through his father, the natural guardian who accepted the same are mentioned in it and since then respondent was remained in possession of the property as an owner of it which shows the acceptance of Hiba on behalf of respondent. Thus, the ingredients of Hiba as directed by the apex Court in the aforesaid case of Mahboob sahab ( AIR 1995 SC 1205 ) (supra) are quite present in the case at hand. Thus, it is held that respondent has acquired the aforesaid property by Hiba and Courts below have not committed any perversity in holding the same. ( 9 ) IT is very interesting thing in this case that as per description of Ex. D. 1 sale deed the same was executed by Yusuf Ali as guardian of respondent in his minority thus it was known to the appellants predecessor that the property transferred to him was acquired by the respondent by virtue of Ex. P. 1 Hiba, on its strength the Ex. D. 1 sale deed was executed accordingly the existence and genuineness of Hiba was admitted by abdul Raheem, hence, he could not be permitted subsequently to say contrary to it in view of the principle of estoppel defined under Section 115 of the evidence Act. Therefore, the appellants and their predecessor abdul Raheem are restrained to challenge the same as it is binding against them. Therefore, it is held that appellants have no authority to challenge the Hiba Ex. P. 1. ( 10 ) IN view of forgoing discussion and reasons I answered the question in negative and against the appellant by holding that courts below have not committed any perversity or illegality in reading the Ex. P. 1 and appreciation of the evidence. Hence this appeal has no merit and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Appeal dismissed. .