Order This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Garhwa in Partition Appeal No. 20/ 06 whereby learned Lower Appellate Court has affirmed and upheld the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court. 2. The appellant was the defendant No. 3 in Partition Suit No. 20/03 filed by the plaintiff-Md. Sabir. The plaintiff had filed the said partition suit praying relief for partition of his half share in the suit land. 3. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises were acquired by his father Md. Jan Mian. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were properly looking after their father. Being pleased by their services, Md. Jan Mian had made an oral gift in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. A memorandum of the said oral gift was prepared on 20.3.91. As per the terms of the said oral gift, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 were given the suit property jointly. The plaintiff as such claimed his half share in the suit property. 4. The defendant No.3 contested the suit on the ground, inter alia, that his father Md. Jan Mian had three sons and six daugh.ters and all the sons and daughters are entitled to get their share in the suit property. The said defendant also disputed the genuineness of the oral gift. 5. Both the parties led their evidences in support of their respective claims. 6. Learned Trial Court after a detailed discussion and consideration of the facts, evidences and materials on record as well as the provisions of law came to the finding that the parties are Muslims and they are governed by the Muslim Law under which a Muslim has right to make an oral gift. Md. Jan Mian had, thus, legal right to transfer his property by oral gift in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. Learned Trial Court further held that the donees also came in possession of the land and property by virtue of the said gift. It has been further held that the defendant No. 3 has failed to prove his right, title and share in the suit property. It has been specifically held that in view of the said gift in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, other sons and daughters had no share in the suit property. It has been further held that the defendant No. 3 has failed to prove his right, title and share in the suit property. It has been specifically held that in view of the said gift in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, other sons and daughters had no share in the suit property. Learned Trial Court, thus, decreed the suit and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.3 preferred appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Garhwa being Partition Appeal No. 20/06 in which the impugned judgment and decree was passed. Learned Lower Appellate Court after hearing the parties also thoroughly discussed the facts, evidences and materials on record. He also discussed the grounds taken by the defendant No. 3appellant and on due consideration thereof, came to the finding that the plaintiff has been able to prove his claim of acquisition of the suit property jointly with the defendant No.1 by virtue of oral gift. He further held that the findings of learned Trial Court are well considered and are based on the evidences on record and there was no infirmity or illegality warranting any interference by the Appellate Court. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, dismissed the appeal. 8. In this second appeal the impugned judgment and decree of learned Lower Appellate Court has been assailed solely on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to specifically plead all the ingredients required for the validity of an oral gift and that learned Courts below has committed error in reading the evidences adduced by the plaintiff to prove the ingredients. 9. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that in order to prove oral Hibba, certain elements are required to be proved which includes' (i) declaration of the gift by the donor, (ii) acceptance of the gift by the donee expressly or impliedly and (iii) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1205 . Learned counsel referred to and relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1205 . Learned counsel submitted that though the plaintiff pleaded to have acquired the suit property by virtue of oral gift, he has not expressly pleaded the said essentials which are required for validity of the oral gift. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and considered his submissions and the materials on record. I have also perused the judgments and decrees of learned Courts below. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court has elaborately discussed the said issues regarding the validity of oral gift and they have concurrently found on the basis of the evidences on record that there was oral gift by Md. Jan Mian in favour of his two sons, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. So far as the absence of pleading of the ingredients is concerned, the law is very much clear in view of the wordings of Order VI Rule 2 C.P.C., which reads as follows: "2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence.-(1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material 'facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. (2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. (3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words." 11. On plain reading of Order VI Rule 2, it is clear that the pleading has to contain and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts and not the evidences by which they are to be proved. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded to have acquired the suit property by virtue of oral Hibba. Mulla in his famous book 'Principle of Mohammadan Law" has mentioned three essentials to prove an oral Hibba: (i) declaration of gift by the donor, (ii) the• acceptance of gift by donee expressly or impliedly and delivery of possession of the subject matter of the gift by donor to the donee. Mulla in his famous book 'Principle of Mohammadan Law" has mentioned three essentials to prove an oral Hibba: (i) declaration of gift by the donor, (ii) the• acceptance of gift by donee expressly or impliedly and delivery of possession of the subject matter of the gift by donor to the donee. The same has been also discussed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahboob Saheb (supra). The plaintiff has set up his title by virtue of oral gift and has proved the said essentials by adducing evidences. The provision of Order VI Rule 2 clearly states that the evidences are not required to be pleaded. In view thereof, I find no substance in the ground taken by the appellant that the impugned judgments and decrees are bad which upheld the plaintiff's claim of oral gift in absence of the pleading of the essentials of oral gift. The essentials of oral gift have been proved by the plaintiff• in support of his claim of oral gift which was specifically pleaded in the plaint. I, therefore, find no error in the impugned judgment and decree of learned Lower Appellate Court giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court in second appeal. 12. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.