Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - This appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit property measuring 33 Kanals 14 Marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Gehli, Tehsil Narnaul and the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1979 passed by the Sub Judge, Narnaul in the case of “Jagdev Singh vs. Ganga Devi” is null and void and not binding upon her rights, has been decreed. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff is that she is owner in possession of the suit property; the defendant is the son of the brother of husband of cousins of plaintiff, who is an illiterate and Pardanashin lady. About more than 1-½ year back from filing of the suit, she wanted to take loan on the suit property. The defendant took her to the Court and obtained her thumb impressions on certain papers through a lawyer. She kept on asking for loan papers but no reply was given by the defendant and when she met the Halqa Patwari in order to take the revenue record, the impugned judgment and decree came to her notice which led to the filing of the present suit. 3. In the written statement, the defendant admitted the relationship as alleged by her and denied the story put forth by the plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff had suffered the decree after admitting the gift. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their case. 5. The Courts below, after appreciation of evidence, decreed the suit holding that in the earlier suit no.594 of 1979 “Jagdev Singh v. Smt. Ganga Devi”, he had pleaded in the plaint that the suit property has been gifted to him by Siri Ram, husband of the plaintiff during his life time but it was found that since the gift deed was oral, therefore, it was hit by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which provides that a gift of an immovable property can only be effected by a registered document signed by the donor and attested by at least 2 witnesses. It was also found that as per jamabandi for the year 1977-78 (Ex.P1) and Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1979 to Rabi 1980, the plaintiff was in possession which means that gift was never acted upon. It was also noticed that in the plaint (Ex.D1), Jagdev Singh had pleaded that gift was made by Siri Ram (deceased) husband of the plaintiff, whereas in the written statement filed in the present suit, he pleaded that the suit land was gifted to him by the plaintiff. It was further observed that if the gift is taken out of the purview and the property is alleged to have been given by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of compromise/admission, it requires registration. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that no fraud has been played by the defendant upon the plaintiff when she had suffered the impugned decree on 12.11.1979 and as he had a pre-existing right on the basis of the gift, the decree was not required to be registered. 7. Before I proceed to decide the inter-se dispute between the parties, it would be relevant to refer to Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads as under:- “123. Transfer how effected.--For the purpose of making a gift of immovable 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. For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered.” 8. As per the aforesaid provisions of the Act, an immovable property can be transferred by way of gift only by way of a registered instrument signed by the donor or on his behalf and should be at least attested by two witnesses. Insofar as the movable property is concerned, it could be transferred both by way of a registered instrument signed as in the case of an immovable property or by simple delivery of possession but such delivery is required to be made as in the case of goods sold. Insofar as the movable property is concerned, it could be transferred both by way of a registered instrument signed as in the case of an immovable property or by simple delivery of possession but such delivery is required to be made as in the case of goods sold. In the present case, however, there is no registered gift deed by the alleged donor Siri Ram, husband of the plaintiff, in favour of the defendant, much-less attested by at least 2 witnesses as it is claimed by the defendant that the gift was oral. In view of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, such a gift is not legally enforceable in the eyes of law at the hands of the defendant who had filed the earlier suit for declaration that he has become the owner of the suit property by way of the gift in which the defendant had filed the admitted written statement. Further more, in the absence of any pre-existing right in favour of the defendant, taking out the gift out of the purview being not legally enforceable, any right conferred upon him by virtue of the consent decree would be a right in the presentie and in such circumstances the decree would require registration and admittedly the impugned decree is not a registered document and having no force of law in view of the Bhoop Singh V. Ram Singh, 1996 AIR 196. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. Thus, in view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as there is no question of law muchless substantial involved therein to persuade this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Court below. Dismissed.