JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2012 passed in R.A. No.65 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chickballapur, sitting at Gowribidanur and the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2009 passed in O.S. No.479 of 1994 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gowribidanur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff’s mother-Smt.Khyrunbi and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff's mother executed a Hiba (gift) in favour of the plaintiff on 06.11.1986 and the plaintiff accepted the gift and the mother of the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property based on the said Hiba. The defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's mother passed away on 08.12.1987 leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole legal heir. The defendant attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 5. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the mother of the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property for valuable consideration and received Rs.2,000/- from the defendant and executed a sale agreement on 11.02.1987. 6. The defendant paid the entire sale consideration amount to the mother of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant on 22.04.1987 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. 7. The plaintiff is having the knowledge regarding the execution of the sale agreement and the registered sale deed by her mother in favour of the defendant. It is denied that her mother had gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and it is contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit by suppressing the material facts. 7. The plaintiff is having the knowledge regarding the execution of the sale agreement and the registered sale deed by her mother in favour of the defendant. It is denied that her mother had gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and it is contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit by suppressing the material facts. It is also contended that the plaintiff is also a signatory to the agreement of sale. Thus, the action of the plaintiff is hit by doctrine of estoppel. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues: Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has become absolute owner and is in lawful possession of suit house vide gift made by her mother as claimed ? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is trying to dispossess without right, title to suit property in any manner? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. whether the defendant proves that the property is sold to defendant for valuable consideration on 5.12.92 and that plaintiff is a tresspasser in the property since then ? 5. What order or decree ? Addl. Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit is barred by time? 3. Whether court fee paid is in-sufficient? 4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? Addl. issue framed on 6.6.2002: 5. Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff's mother Khyrunbi had executed an agreement of sale on 11.2.1987 in his favour in respect of suit schedule property ? Addl.Issue No.6 framed on 02.02.2009: 6. Whether the defendant proves that the Gift Deed relied by the plaintiff is concocted, forged manipulated just to knock off the property wrongful gain ? 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, examined three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4 and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-14. The defendant examined himself as DW1, examined two witnesses as DW2 and DW3; and marked 25 documents as Exhibits D1 to D25. 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, examined three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4 and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-14. The defendant examined himself as DW1, examined two witnesses as DW2 and DW3; and marked 25 documents as Exhibits D1 to D25. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional issue No.1 in the negative; issue No.4, Additional Issue Nos.5 and 6 in the affirmative; Additional Issue Nos. 2 to 4 as per the finding; and issue No.5, as per the final order; consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.04.2009. 10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.65 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chickabllapur, sitting at Gowribidanur. 11. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and capricious and opposed to law? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for interference by this Court? 3. What order? 12. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and point No.3, as per the final order; the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.03.2012 and confirmed the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 13. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees, preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. None appears for the respondent. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the mother of the plaintiff executed a Hiba (gift deed) whereby she had gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff accepted the gift and the mother of the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel submits that to fulfil the requirements of Hiba (gift), the plaintiff's mother offered to give the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had accepted the gift and the mother delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. 16. The learned counsel submits that to fulfil the requirements of Hiba (gift), the plaintiff's mother offered to give the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had accepted the gift and the mother delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. 16. She submits that the plaintiff's mother executed a gift deed and that, Mohammedan Law does not require registration of a written document to be valid and even an oral gift that fulfils the three essential requisites is complete and irrevocable. 17. To buttress her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mansoor Saheb (dead) and others vs. Salima (dead) by LRs and others , reported in AIR 2025 SC 373 . Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 18. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether a gift executed by a Mohammedan which is reduced into writing requires to be registered in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and whether it is a compulsory attestable document? " Reg. Substantial question of Law : 19. There is no dispute that the plaintiff's mother was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff's mother gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by executing a gift deed and delivered the possession. By virtue of a gift deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. The mother of the plaintiff died leaving behind the plaintiff. The defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff. The defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to file the instant suit. 20. The mother of the plaintiff died leaving behind the plaintiff. The defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff. The defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to file the instant suit. 20. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case examined herself as PW-1 and she reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove that her mother was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, she has produced the Khata at Exhibit P-1, wherein the name of the mother of the plaintiff was shown as the owner and her name was rounded off and name of the plaintiff was shown as the owner of the suit schedule property and her name was entered in the Municipal Records in 1992; Exhibit P-2 is the letter issued by the Town Municipal Council, Gauribidanuru, to the plaintiff; Exhibits P-3 to P-8 are the electricity bills; Exhibits P-9 to P-12 are the receipts; Exhibit P-13 is the Death Certificate of the plaintiff’s mother, who passed away on 08.12.1987; Exhibit P-14 is the Gift Deed dated 06.11.1986 alleged to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff, in favour of the plaintiff. 21. During the cross-examination of PW-1, it was suggested to PW-1 that the plaintiff's mother agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration and executed an agreement of sale. The plaintiff and her brothers by name Abdul Sattar and Abdul Basha were present and they had affixed their signatures on the agreement as consenting witnesses. The plaintiff and her brothers have received a sum of Rs.2,000/- and further, the mother of the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. The said suggestions were denied by PW-1. 22. PW-1 also examined three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4, who had also deposed that the mother of the plaintiff gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by executing Exhibit P-14. The plaintiff based on Exhibit P-14 got entered her name in the Municipal records as the owner. 23. The said suggestions were denied by PW-1. 22. PW-1 also examined three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4, who had also deposed that the mother of the plaintiff gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by executing Exhibit P-14. The plaintiff based on Exhibit P-14 got entered her name in the Municipal records as the owner. 23. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as PW-1 and he deposed that the mother of the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property in his favour for valuable consideration and accordingly, the mother of the plaintiff received Rs.2,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount, and, accordingly her mother executed an agreement of sale; the plaintiff and her brothers signed as the attesting witnesses to the sale agreement. 24. Subsequently, the mother of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance sale consideration amount, executed a registered sale deed and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. Thus, the defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff's mother and based on the registered sale deed, the name of the defendant is entered in the Municipal records. 25. The defendant, to prove his defence produced the documents. Exhibit D-1 is the sale agreement, which discloses that the plaintiff’s mother executed a sale agreement in favour of the defendant; the signature of the plaintiff is marked as Exhibit D1-(C), wherein the plaintiff has signed as an attesting witness to the sale agreement and the plaintiff was well aware about the execution of the sale agreement by her mother in favour of the defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff's mother executed a registered sale deed marked, as Exhibit D-2. The defendant has produced the registered sale deed dated 22.04.1987 at Exhibit D2. Exhibit D3 is another sale deed dated 22.09.1952, which discloses that the plaintiff's grand-father purchased the suit schedule property vide said agreement and after his demise, the plaintiff's mother succeeded to the suit schedule property. Exhibit D-4 is the certified copy of the sale deed. Exhibit D-5 is the Tax Register Extract, which discloses the name of the plaintiff’s mother as the owner of the suit schedule property. Exhibit D-6 is the notice issued by the TMC, Gowribidanuru to the defendant. Exhibits D-7 to D-9 are the Tax Register Extracts. Exhibit D-4 is the certified copy of the sale deed. Exhibit D-5 is the Tax Register Extract, which discloses the name of the plaintiff’s mother as the owner of the suit schedule property. Exhibit D-6 is the notice issued by the TMC, Gowribidanuru to the defendant. Exhibits D-7 to D-9 are the Tax Register Extracts. They disclose that the defendant is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property for the year from 1987-88 to 1994-95 and 1996-97. Exhibit D-10 is the copy of the TMC Resolution which discloses that the Town Municipal Council, based on the application submitted by the defendant, on the basis of a registered sale deed, the name of the defendant was entered in the Municipal records as the owner; The defendant also produced electricity bills and receipts to prove that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 26. The defendant also examined the attesting witnesses to Exhibit D-2, who have deposed that the plaintiff's mother sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and executed a registered sale deed, marked as Exhibit D-2 and they also identified their signatures and their signatures were marked accordingly. 27. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute that the plaintiff’s mother was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contended that the plaintiff's mother gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. 28. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the plaintiff’s mother agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration and accordingly, received Rs.2,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and the plaintiff's mother executed a sale agreement. The plaintiff and her brothers have affixed their signatures as the attesting witnesses to Exhibit D-1. The plaintiff has not denied the signature appearing on Exhibit D-1. 29. The mother of the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed marked as Exhibit D-2. The plaintiff did not challenge the registered sale deed executed by her mother in favour of the defendant, on the ground that her mother executed a gift deed as per Exhibit P-14. The plaintiff has not produced any records to establish that based on Exhibit P-14, her name was entered in the Municipal records. 30. The plaintiff did not challenge the registered sale deed executed by her mother in favour of the defendant, on the ground that her mother executed a gift deed as per Exhibit P-14. The plaintiff has not produced any records to establish that based on Exhibit P-14, her name was entered in the Municipal records. 30. Though the said document produced by the plaintiff is an unregistered document, it is settled law that under Mohammedan law, if a donor executes an unregistered gift deed, the registration of the gift is not required and it is not compulsorily registerable document, in view of the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mansoor Saheb (Supra) 31. Exhibit P-14 is an unregistered gift deed and it does not require a registration. However, the plaintiff did not explain as to why the plaintiff has affixed her signature on Exhibit D-1 i.e., the Sale Agreement executed by her mother in favour of the defendant. There is no explanation forthcoming from the plaintiff either in the plaint or in the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses. 32. There is a recital in the registered sale deed regarding the delivery of possession. The plaintiff by leading the oral evidence tried to contradict or vary the terms and conditions of Exhibit D-2, which is inadmissible under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. 33. From the perusal of Exhibit D-2, it is clear that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 34. Both Courts below, considering that the plaintiff's mother had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant and also there is a recital in the registered sale deed regarding the delivery of possession, have rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to establish her possession over the suit schedule property and also alleged interference by the defendant. 35. The Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and the First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the entire evidence on record, has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and decrees. 36. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the negative 37. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and decrees. 36. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the negative 37. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed (II) The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed (III) No order as to the costs. (IV) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.