JUDGEMENT Surjit Singh, J(Oral) The present appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 7th April, 1999, of learned District Judge, was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the courts below have mis-read and mis-interpreted the documentary as well as oral evidence resulting in gross mis-carriage of justice?” 2. By the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 7thApril, 1999, learned District Judge dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17th December, 1997 of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Chamba, whereby plaintiffs’ suit for declaration, with alternative relief of possession, was dismissed. 3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of 13 bighas 8 biswas land, being 7/20th share of 38 bighas 6 biswas land, which was owned and possessed by late Smt. Hardei. They pleaded that said Smt. Hardei was their father’s sister and that she executed a gift deed, in respect of her share in the suit land, in their favour on 23rd December, 1985 and got that deed registered with the Registrar of Documents, on 1st January, 1986. It was stated that said Hardei died in the year 1991 and after her death, the defendants, without any right, title or interest in the suit land, started interfering in their possession. Besides seeking a decree of declaration, in the aforesaid terms, they sought issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in their possession over the above-described land. They further pleaded that in case they were dispossessed by the defendants, decree for possession be passed in their favour. 4. Defendants contested the suit. They claimed that defendant No.1 Keshav had been inducted as tenant on the suit land by Hardei some 15-16 years prior to her death and that ever since he had been in possession as tenant and was paying rent, in kind, by sharing the produce of the land with said Hardei, to the extent of 1/4th. 5. Learned Sub Judge held that gift deed had not been voluntarily executed by Hardei. It was also held that the conduct of the plaintiffs also indicated that no gift had been made in their favour. Further, it was held that gift was invalid, on account of the possession of the gifted property having not been delivered to the plaintiffs by Hardei. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. 6. It was also held that the conduct of the plaintiffs also indicated that no gift had been made in their favour. Further, it was held that gift was invalid, on account of the possession of the gifted property having not been delivered to the plaintiffs by Hardei. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. 6. In appeal, learned District Judge endorsed the findings of the learned trial Court that gift deed had not been executed voluntarily and that the conduct of the plaintiffs also indicated that gift deed was not genuine. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Gift deed is Ex. PW-3/A. It purports to have been executed by Hardei on 23rd December, 1985, in the presence of Dhian Singh and Devia. Scribe of the gift deed was Henry Mathews. By the time the recording of evidence commenced, Henry Mathews (the scribe) and Dhian Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, were no more. Anand Sagar, an apprentice of Henry Mathews, was examined as PW-1, who stated that gift deed was written in the hand of Henry Mathews and was also signed by him as scribe. 9. One of the plaintiffs, namely Gian Chand, appeared as PW-2 and testified about the execution of gift deed Ex. PW-3/A, by deceased Hardei, in favour of the plaintiffs. He stated that Hardei died in the year 1991. He also stated that mutation was entered, on the basis of gift deed, but the defendants, in connivance with the revenue officials, got the mutation entry rejected. He stated that gift deed was presented for registration to the Sub Registrar, Salooni and it was attested in the presence of Rattan Chand, whom the plaintiffs examined as PW-3, and one Prithvi Raj, who had, by that time, died. 10. One of the attesting witnesses of the gift deed, namely Devia, was examined on commission. He is PW-4. According to him, Hardei herself had got the gift deed scribed from a Deed Writer at Chamba in favour of the plaintiffs. 11. 10. One of the attesting witnesses of the gift deed, namely Devia, was examined on commission. He is PW-4. According to him, Hardei herself had got the gift deed scribed from a Deed Writer at Chamba in favour of the plaintiffs. 11. One of the two witnesses, who were present before the Sub Registrar, at the time of the registration of the gift deed, namely Rattan Chand (PW-3), stated that he knew Hardei and that she had presented a gift deed, which she executed in favour of plaintiffs Gian Chand and Dhanbir, before Sub Registrar, Salooni, for registration and that he and Prithvi Raj, Chairman, Block Development Committee, were present at the time of the registration of the gift deed. 12. Defendants led no evidence to rebut plaintiffs’ evidence, regarding the execution and the attestation of gift deed as also its registration. They simply relied upon the order of rejection of mutation tendered in evidence by the plaintiffs, per which Hardei appeared before the Revenue Officer, at the time of passing order on mutation entry and stated that she had not made any gift in favour of the plaintiffs. There is no evidence, indicating that the plaintiffs were present at the time when order Ex. PA, rejecting the mutation, was passed. Rather from a reading of Ex. PA, it appears that probably the plaintiffs were not present, because their presence is not specifically recorded. 13. Statement made by Hardei, at the time when the mutation entry was submitted to the Revenue Officer, for passing appropriate orders, cannot be used as substantive evidence, because it was made behind the back of the plaintiffs. Another reason for not using this statement as evidence is that this statement is contrary to the positive evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, in the form of the testimony of an apprentice of the scribe, one of the attesting witnesses of the gift deed and one of the two witnesses in whose presence the gift deed was presented for registration by Hardei and was registered by the Registrar of Documents. 14. There is absolutely no evidence, indicating that gift was not made by Hardei, voluntarily. In fact there is definite evidence adduced by the plaintiffs that Hardei herself got the gift deed executed and then presented it to the Sub Registrar for its registration. 14. There is absolutely no evidence, indicating that gift was not made by Hardei, voluntarily. In fact there is definite evidence adduced by the plaintiffs that Hardei herself got the gift deed executed and then presented it to the Sub Registrar for its registration. Therefore, the view taken by the two Courts below that gift deed had not been executed voluntarily cannot be upheld. 15. It has come in evidence that Hardei had inherited the property, in question, from her father. There is unchallenged testimony of one of the plaintiffs, namely PW-2 Gian Chand, to this effect. Plaintiffs are the sons of a brother of Hardei or say the paternal grand-sons of the father of Hardei. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural in the making of gift by Hardei, in respect of the suit land, in favour of the plaintiffs. 16. View taken by the trial Court that possession of the suit property had not been delivered to the plaintiffs and, therefore, the gift is not valid, is contrary to law. It is not the requirement of law that possession of the gifted property should accompany the making of gift. Law requires only the acceptance of gift by the donee. In the present case, gift deed was handed over by Hardei to the plaintiffs and that is why that they produced it in the Court. Plaintiffs’ being in possession of the gift deed suggests that they had accepted the gift deed. 17. Defendants’ plea that respondent Keshav was inducted as tenant by Hardei is not proved. Hardei when appearing before Revenue Officer, at the time of passing order on mutation entry, did not state that she had inducted Keshav as tenant or that he ever paid any rent to her. Witnesses examined by the defendants made contradictory statements, regarding agreement for creation of tenancy. DW-2 Raghu stated that agreement was made at Hardei’s house in his presence and two other persons, named Locha and Janta, but DW-3 Kanth stated that agreement was made at Keshav’s residence in the presence of Raghu and three-four other persons named by him, but those persons do not include Janta and Locha, as named by Raghu. 18. In view of the abovestated position, it is held that Hardei had executed a valid gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs and the two Courts below have gravely erred in appreciating the evidence. 18. In view of the abovestated position, it is held that Hardei had executed a valid gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs and the two Courts below have gravely erred in appreciating the evidence. Substantial question of law stands answered accordingly. 19. In view of the aforesaid answer to the substantial question of law, appeal is accepted, judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and they are declared to be owners of the suit land and decree for possession of the suit land is also passed in their favour. Appeal stands disposed of.