JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Trilok Joshi, has filed a caveat on behalf of the respondents. However, with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, this case is being decided at this stage itself. 2. The appellants have challenged the order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the Additional District judge, (Fast Track) No.'2, Hanumangarh H.O. Nohar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 C.P.C. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 had two brothers Meharddin, and Habib Khan. All the brothers were jointly residing. Meharddin died in the year 1945. At that time, his son, Nazirddin, was 7-8 years old. After the death of Meharddin, his wife got remarried. Therefore, Habib Khan took care of the young child, Nazirddin. Since Habib Khan was not having any son, he had love and affection for Nazirddin. A parcel land was allotted to Habib Khan, and. plaintiff Nos. I and 2 but major part of the land was mutated in the name or Habib Khan. Habib Khan fell ill, his daughters, Jetun and Husna, came to meet him. In the presence of Jetun, Husna, Rashid Khan, and Kherddin, Habib Khan wanted to gift the land to the appellants, Hakimuddin, his brother and to Nazirddin, his nephew. With the consent of his daughters, Habib Khan gifted the land to the appellants. The gift was accepted by the appellants. Habib Khan also handed over the possession of the land to the appellants. After six year, Jetun, the daughter of Habib Khan, died, the land in question continuously remained in the name of Habib Khan because of the gift was oral. The respondents No. I to 6, who are sons and daughters of Jetun, have tried to get the land in question mutated in their names. They also talked to Husna, the respondent No. 7, about their rights, but she refused. Therefore, the appellants prayed for temporary injunction against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 29.8.2012, the learned judge dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellants. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. R.S. Choudhary, the learned counsel.for the appellants, has contended that the entire impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises. 1 to 6. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 29.8.2012, the learned judge dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellants. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. R.S. Choudhary, the learned counsel.for the appellants, has contended that the entire impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises. According to the learned judge, three elements need to be established for holding that an oral ,gift was legally made under the Islamic Law:firstly, the gift has to be declared by the donor; secondly, it has to be accepted by the donee; thirdly, the possession of the land has to be delivered by the donor to the donee. Despite the existence of these three elements, the learned judge has declined to grant an injunction in favour of the appellants ostensibly on the ground that he doubts the veracity of the oral gift made by Habib Khan. The reasons for his doubting the veracity are, firstly, that despite having the possession for last twenty years, the appellants have not gotten the mutation of the land done in their name. Secondly, Hakimuddin had gifted this land to his sons which he got registered. Thirdly, that while filing the revenue suit by Hakimuddin, he had initially claimed that the land was given by Habib Khan through a Will. However, subsequently, he had amended the plaint in order to claim that the land was gifted orally by Habib Khan to him and his nephew, Nazirddin. However, according to the learned counsel, once the three elements of Islamic Law were established, the appellants had proved the fact that they had a strong prima facie case in their favour. Since they happened to be in possession of the land, the balance of convenience was also in their favour. Lastly, in case the respondents were to transfer the land to any third party, it would cause irreparable loss to the appellants. Lastly, that Husna, respondent No. 7 has supported the case of the appellants. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Trilok Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that Husna, respondent No. 7, has supported the claims of the appellants as two of her sisters-in-laws are married to sons of Hakimuddin, appellant No. 1. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Trilok Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that Husna, respondent No. 7, has supported the claims of the appellants as two of her sisters-in-laws are married to sons of Hakimuddin, appellant No. 1. Moreover, there is no evidence which has been produced by the appellants in order to establish that they have the possession of the land. Therefore, the third element required by the Islamic Law, has not been established. Thirdly, that in the revenue suit filed by Hakimuddin, he had claimed that the land was transferred through a Will. Subsequently, he has claimed that the land was given through an oral gift. Thus, he has shifted his stand. Hence, the learned judge was justified in doubting the veracity of the alleged oral gift. Lastly, Rashid Khan, one of the witness of the alleged gift, is also shown as witness in the gift deed registered by Hakimuddin in favour of his children. Therefore, he is a doubtful witness to the alleged gift orally made by Habib Khan. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order as well as considered the written statement filed by Husna. 7. Indeed, it is a settled principle of Islamic Law that an oral gift can be made of immovable property. Moreover, such a gift need not be reduced into writing, and need not be registered. The three essential elements in Islmic Law for a valid gift are, the gift has to be declared by the donor, it has to be accepted by the donee, and the possession of the object of the gift has to be delivered by the donor to the donee. In the present case, not only the appellants, but most importantly Husna, the respondent No. 7, clearly admits in her written statement that she and her other sister Jetun were present on 5.1.1992 when their father Habib Khan had made an oral gift in favour of Hakimuddin and Nazirdeen his brother and his nephew respectively. Most importantly, she claims that after making the said oral gift, and after its acceptance by Hakimuddin and Nazirdeen, her father had handed over the possession of land to them. Even according to the appellants, they have been in possession of the land ever since 5.1.1992. Most importantly, she claims that after making the said oral gift, and after its acceptance by Hakimuddin and Nazirdeen, her father had handed over the possession of land to them. Even according to the appellants, they have been in possession of the land ever since 5.1.1992. Therefore, prima facie, the fact that the land is in their possession is established for the time being. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned judge has based his reasoning on conjectures and surmises. Merely because the land has not been mutated in the name of Hakimuddin and Nazirdeen for the last twenty years would not make the oral gift doubtful. Moreover, merely because Hakimuddin has gotten the gift deed, which he made in favour of his own sons, registered would not make any difference to the controversy involved in the present case. Furthermore, merely because Rashid Khan happens to be a witness to the both the oral gift made by Habib Khan, and to the written gift-deed made by Hakimudeen in favour of sons, would not make Rashid Khan a doubtful witness, Lastly, merely because Hakimudeen initially claimed in the revenue suit that the land was transferred through a Will, and subsequently, has amended the plaint before the Revenue Board, again would not make the oral gift suspect. Thus, the learned judge has based the entire reasoning on surmises and conjectures, and on presumption, which are not based on law. 9. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is, hereby, allowed. The impugned order dated 29.8.2012 is quashed and set aide. The parties are directed to maintain the status quo as of today, i.e. 10.9.2012. It is also clarified that any observations made above, would not effect the final out come of the civil Court suit.Appeal allowed. *******