JUDGMENT : This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18/1/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in T.A. Appeal No. 41/2010, whereby learned Civil Judge dismissing the cross objection allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal is that the appellants herein, as plaintiffs, filed T.S. No. 76/2009 praying for partition of the land described in the plaint, declaration of their title over the land measuring 3 bigha 3 katha 10 lecha out of the schedule-B land and also for recovery of possession by evicting the respondents/defendants. 3. The case of the plaintiffs was that land measuring 10 B 1 K 13 L covered by K.P. Patta No. 96 and Dag No. 84 and 85 belonged to Rahatannessa and her two sons Rekat Ali, predecessor of the plaintiffs and Raizuddin, predecessor of the defendants. Out of the said land, land measuring 1 B 4 K 13 L covered by Dag No. 84 was transferred in favour of proforma defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by all the pattadars. Thereafter, Rahatannessa gifted 1 B of land in favour of Azizpur Jamamasjid and two bighas of land in favour of proforma defendant No. 5 and plaintiff No. 2 from dag No. 85. Thus, at the time of death of Rahatannessa, total land left out in the suit patta was 5 B 2 K, which was jointly owned by Rekat Ali and Raizuddin having equal share therein. Out of the said land, 1 B was gifted to the plaintiff and with the said gifted land the plaintiff were entitled to land measuring 3 B 3 K 10 L, which was in possession of the plaintiffs and after death of Raizuddin. The defendants occupied 3/4th portion of the land, which was in possession of the plaintiff and hence, theplaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of their title over 3B 3K 10 L of land, partition and other relief, as indicated above. 4. The pleaded case of the defendant was that Rahatannessa transferred 1 B of land in favour of Azizpur Jamamasjid and 1 B each in favour of Amir Ali, proforma defendant No. 5 and Samsul Haque, the plaintiff, which they were possessing. 4. The pleaded case of the defendant was that Rahatannessa transferred 1 B of land in favour of Azizpur Jamamasjid and 1 B each in favour of Amir Ali, proforma defendant No. 5 and Samsul Haque, the plaintiff, which they were possessing. After transfer of 3 B of land by Rahatannessa, 7 B 1 K 13 L of land was left over, which was possessed by all the three pattadars having equal share therein. However, Rekat Ali transferred the entire land measuring 1 B 1 K 13 L of land of Dag No. 84 to Mukaddes Ali and since then, he has been possessing the said land. After selling 1 B 1 K 13 L of land, only 1 B 1 K 12 L of land was left out in the share of Rekat Ali, which he transferred in favour of Raizuddin, the predecessor of the defendants and after transferring the said 1 B 1 K 13 L of land in favour of Raizuddin, 1 B in favour of Mukaddes Ali and 01B 2 K 12 L in favour of proforma respondent No. 2, Raikat Ali was left with no share in the said patta and as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to any land in the suit patta. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsiff framed the following issues :- 1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest in the suit land to the extent of 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 lechas ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of partition for their share in the suit land ? 4. Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief/reliefs? 5. Both the parties adduced evidence. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses in support of their claim. Defendants, however, did not adduce any evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Munsiff partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18/1/12. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff preferred T.A.No.41/2010 wherein the defendants also took cross objection. The learned First Appellate Court, upon hearing the parties, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff granting the relief sought in the plaint and dismissed the cross-objection. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff preferred T.A.No.41/2010 wherein the defendants also took cross objection. The learned First Appellate Court, upon hearing the parties, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff granting the relief sought in the plaint and dismissed the cross-objection. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court, the defendant preferred the instant second appeal which was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the finding recorded by the first appellate court that the defendants have admitted gift of 1 bigha of land by their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Raijuddin in favour of plaintiff No. 2, is perverse being not so pleaded in the written statement ? (ii) Whether the first appellate court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of 3 bighas 3 kathas 10 lechas in the absence of any proof relating to the oral gift, within the meaning of Section 149 of Mohammedan Law by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff No. 2 ? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan submits that the defendant neither admitted gift of 1 B of land in favour of the plaintiffs, nor the plaintiffs could prove the gift of 1 bigha of land as per Mohammadan Law and therefore, the learned first appellate court committed illegality by holding that 1 bigha of land was gifted by Raiz Uddin in favour of the plaintiff No. 2, Samsul Haque. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. R. Choudhury submits that the defendant, after filing written statement and making some evasive plea, did not come forward to substantiate their plea, nor adduced any evidence and the learned first appellate court, having appreciated the evidence brought on record, rightly passed the decree. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. R. Choudhury submits that the defendant, after filing written statement and making some evasive plea, did not come forward to substantiate their plea, nor adduced any evidence and the learned first appellate court, having appreciated the evidence brought on record, rightly passed the decree. 10. The undisputed facts emerged from the submission of the learned counsel forboth the sides are that Rahatannessa, Rekat Ali and Raizuddin were the joint owners and pattadars of total land measuring 10 B 1 K 13 L, and out of the said 10 B 1 K 13 L, land measuring 4 B 4 K and 13 L were alienated by the pattadars and after such alienation of 4 B 4 K 13 L, the land measuring 5 B 2 K was left over, which was owned by Rekat Ali and Raizuddin. That after disposal of the land from the suit patta as indicated above, ultimately Raizuddin and Rekat Ali remained joint owners of the total land measuring 5 B 2 K and to that effect also, there was no dispute. It is also admitted position that both Raikat Ali and Raiz Uddin were entitled to the said 5 B 2 K of land in equal share. The case of the plaintiff in their pleadings and evidence was that Raiz Uddin gifted 1 B of land out of the half share in 5B 2 K of land in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and with the said gifted one bigha of land, the plaintiffs claimed their ownership over total land of 3 B 3 K 10 L. The defendants though, in their written statement generally denied issue-wise all the averments made in the plaint, while stating the real facts, admitted certain facts as regards the transfer of land in favour of Azizpur Jamamasjid as well as to the proforma defendant No. 5. The crux of the dispute, as appears from the pleadings of the parties, was with respect to the 1 B of land allegedly gifted by Raizuddin in favour of plaintiff No. 2. 11. The submission of the learned counsel, Mr. The crux of the dispute, as appears from the pleadings of the parties, was with respect to the 1 B of land allegedly gifted by Raizuddin in favour of plaintiff No. 2. 11. The submission of the learned counsel, Mr. Barbhuiya is that the gift of 1 B of land has not been proved in the case and in absence of such proof, plaintiffs cannot be entitled to a declaration at least to the extent of 1 B of land which they claimed to have received by way of gift from Raizuddin. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in R.K. Madhuryyajit Singh and Anr. Vs. Takhellambam Abung Singh, AIR 2001 Gauhati 181, wherein this Court held that where a plaintiff ask for a declaratory decree, he/she must prove his/her title and cannot take the advantage of the weakness of the defendants. The proposition of law, that in a suit based on title, plaintiff must prove his title by his own evidence and cannot take advantage of weakness of the defendants is well settled andthere is no quarrel with such proposition. 12. S 101 (1) of the Evidence Act provides that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of the facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist meaning thereby, when a party desires the court to pass a judgment in his favour on the basis of certain facts the burden lies with the said party to prove such facts on the basis of which the relief is sought. 13. The case of the plaintiffs was that 1 B of land was gifted orally by Raizuddin and in support of such plea two witnesses were examined, being the plaintiff No. 1 himself and another witness PW 2. PW 1 stated in his evidence that out of his share of 2 B 3 K 10 L of land, Raizuddin gifted the land measuring 1 B from his share in favour of plaintiff No. 2, who accepted the gift and possession of the said land was also delivered. 14. PW 2 deposed that Raizuddin gifted a part of the suit land measuring 1 B from his share in favour of plaintiff No. 2, who accepted the gift and took possession thereof. 14. PW 2 deposed that Raizuddin gifted a part of the suit land measuring 1 B from his share in favour of plaintiff No. 2, who accepted the gift and took possession thereof. It is settled law that under Mohammadan Law oral gift is permissible provided the three essential ingredients, viz., offer, acceptance and delivery of possession are present. 15. What is evident from the oral testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 is that all the three ingredients of a valid gift under the Mohammadan Law were present in the instant case. The above categorical evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 supporting the claim of the plaintiffs that 1 B of land was gifted in favour of plaintiff No. 2 remained totally uncontroverted. Neither any evidence was adduced by the defendants, nor thedefendants came forward to controvert the evidence of the plaintiffs’ side. The plea of gift taken by the plaintiffs in respect of 1 B of land by Raiz Uddin in favour of plaintiff No. 2 appears to have been adequately proved by the plaintiffs through evidence. 16. Though the defendants generally denied all the pleas, no evidence was adduced from the defendants’ side to disprove the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. It is also pertinent to mention, that as per Order VIII Rule 3 CPC, evasive denial amount to admission. As already indicated above, the defendants filed the W/S making only general averment denying the entire averments of the plaint, without denying specifically the plea of gift. When the defendants have failed to specifically deny the factum of gift and plaintiffs have proved the plea of gift by adducing legal evidence establishing all the three ingredients of a gift under the Mohammadan Law, in my considered view, the plaintiffs have discharged their burden to get a declaration of title in respect of such gifted land. Thus, the evidence and pleadings of the plaintiff make it abundantly clear, that the factum of gift of 1 B of land by Raizuddin in favour of plaintiff No. 2 has been adequately proved and as such, finding of the learned first appellate court on the basis of above evidence cannot be faulted. 17. Thus, the evidence and pleadings of the plaintiff make it abundantly clear, that the factum of gift of 1 B of land by Raizuddin in favour of plaintiff No. 2 has been adequately proved and as such, finding of the learned first appellate court on the basis of above evidence cannot be faulted. 17. Once the gift of 1B of land is proved, there was no option but to decree the suit of the plaintiff, reason being that there was no dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiffs over the 2B 3K 10Ls of land, and as such, the learned first appellate court is found to have rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs declaring their title over 3B 3K 10Ls of land which included the half share of land in 5B 2K 1L. Accordingly, the substantial question Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs. 18. In view of the foregoing discussions and the decisions with regard to the substantial questions of law, the present appeal does not appear to have any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 20. Send back the LCR.