IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR

DIVISION

IN,

THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION - I

(MUNSIFF-I)

AT RANCHI

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 220 OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Syed Jawed Parwej … PLAINTIFF

Versus

Shahina Parween … DEFENDANT

Written statement on behalf of Defendant

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That Defendant denies all the averments, statements, and

allegations in toto made by Plaintiff in the Plaint along

with the Affidavit in support thereof except those which

are specifically admitted to be true hereunder. Defendant

 herein does not admit and should not admit any

averments made by Plaintiff merely because Defendant

may not have specifically dealt with the same.

2. That the Defendants submit that the suit of the Plaintiff, is

false, frivolous, and vexatious and is not maintainable in

fact and law and is liable to be dismissed with

compensatory costs under Section 35A and 95 of the Code

of Civil Procedure 1908.

3. That instant suit as framed is not maintainable as the

Plaintiff (i.e., donor) has no cause of action against the

Defendant (i.e., donee).

4. That the Defendants submit that the suit filed by Plaintiff

is barred by waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence and is not

maintainable.

5. That the Defendants further submit that the suit is barred

by limitation and is not maintainable.

6. That before giving a para-wise reply, the Defendants seek

the leave of this Hon’ble Court to bring on record certain

facts necessary for the appreciation of this Hon’ble Court

and adjudication of the suit.

7. That the instant suit has been falsely instituted by Plaintiff

against Defendant with an intention to grab the suit

property of 5 ½ decimals for which Plaintiff had earlier

gifted orally to Defendant on 7 th April 2000 and had later

reduced into writing on 26th May 2000. The gift is legal

and valid under Muslim Law as the gift was made by

Plaintiff in favor of Defendant on 7 th April 2000 which was

duly accepted by Defendant and the defendant was put

into possession immediately thereafter. The said gift deed

was reduced into writing on 26th May 2000. The gift did

not stipulate any condition.

Since the date of gift i.e., 7 th April 2000, Defendant is

in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit property

in the capacity of the owner. The afore-mentioned fact is

admitted by Plaintiff himself in para 4 of the Plaint.

Thereafter, Defendant during the lifetime of her husband

made further construction over the suit property with her

own expenses to meet the residential requirement of her

family. The defendant has resided over the suit property

since the gift deed was executed.

PARA-WISE REPLY
8. That the averments made in para 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the

Plaint are true and, the same is admitted.

9. That the averments made in para 5 of the plaint are

misleading and false. It is humbly submitted that ever

since the oral gift was made, Plaintiff and Defendant both

reside separately in their respective share. It is reiterated

that Plaintiff has transferred the suit property by virtue of

a gift deed by meeting the essential requisites for

constituting a valid gift in favor of Defendant.

In Hafeeza Bibi & ors vs. Shaikh Farid and ors.

reported in (2011) 5 SCC 654 questions relating to gift

under Mohammedan law came up for consideration before

the Apex Court wherein, it was held that the three

essentials of a gift under Mohammadan Law are;

A. declaration of the gift by the donor

B. acceptance of the gift by the donee and,

C. delivery of possession.

Under Mohammadan Law, a gift deed can be oral if it

meets out the abovementioned conditions. In the instant

case, the conditions prescribed are met. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail

and Ors., 1995 SCC (3) 693 has referred to ‘Mulla's

Principles of Mahomedan Law (19th Edition)’. Paragraph

152 envisages that a gift of immovable property of which

the donor is in actual possession is not complete unless

the donor physically departs from the premises with all his

goods and chattels and the donee formally enters into

possession. Thus, a gift by a Mohamedan is not required

to be in writing and consequently, need not be registered

under the Registration Act 1908. However, it is to be

noted that in paragraph 152(3) it is stated that no

physical departure or formal entry is necessary in the case

of a gift of immovable property in which the donor and the

donee are both residing at the time of making the gift. In

such a case, the gift may be completed by some overt act

by the donor indicating a clear intention on his part to

transfer possession and to divest himself of all control

over the subject of the gift. Thus, in the light of the

above-mentioned principles and from the perusal of the

averments made in Plaint and the Memorandum of Oral

Gift dated 26.5.2000, it is to be noted that in the present

case, the gift is legal and valid and the suit property
 forming the subject matter of the gift is in exclusive

possession of the Defendant/ Donee pursuant to the gift

deed ever since the date of the gift.

10. That with regards to the averment made in para 6 of

the Plaint, it is humbly submitted that mutation is not

condition precedent for any gift or for making a gift deed

valid. Mutation is only an exercise to collect rent from the

tenant. It is further submitted that the allegation of illegal

construction of the residential house is baseless and

without any cogent evidence. It is further submitted that

the present Defendant has not constructed anything over

any portion of the land over and above the land forming

subject matter of the gift. However, she has only

constructed a residential property on her share of land

way back in the year 2000 after the execution of the gift

deed.

11. That the averments made in para 7 and 8 of the

Plaint are hereby denied, as the allegations made are false

and manufactured. It is humbly submitted that the

Defendant is a law-abiding and peace-loving citizen.

12. That with regards to the averments made in para 9

of the plaint, it is humbly submitted that as regards to the

facts of the present case, the gift was made orally in favor

of Defendant (own sister of the plaintiff) by the Plaintiff on

7th April 2000, in respect of the scheduled property

(“schedule – A of the Plaint”) and later, reduced in writing

on 26th May 2000. The said gift as recited was out of love

and affection.

In the instant case, although the gift was oral in

nature, it was reduced to writing only to save the family

from future litigations. It is pertinent to state that as per

the Mahomedan Law, a gift made orally by the donor to

the done is complete and irrevocable. It is further

submitted that Defendant’s accepted the gift which is also

evidenced later on when it was reduced in writing it was

signed the defendant. In this case, Plaintiff has delivered

the vacant possession and Defendant is in peaceful

possession ever since the oral gift was made. Thus, the

essential requisites of a gift have been fulfilled and an oral

gift fulfilling all the essentials makes the gift complete and

irrevocable. It is further submitted that the gift deed

 dated 26.5.2000 is a form of a declaration by the donor

and not an instrument of gift as contemplated under

Section 17 of the Registration Act. It is further submitted

that Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, excludes

the rule of Mahomedan law from the purview of Section

123 which mandates that the gift of immovable property

must be effected by a registered instrument as stated

therein.

13. That with regards to the averments made in para 10

of the plaint, it is humbly submitted that Plaintiff has no

cause of action to file the instant suit. It is the settled law

that mutation of names is not a condition precedent for

the delivery of the possession of the property in favor of

the Donee. It is further submitted that if there is delivery

of possession of the gifted property to the Donee then it is

not necessary to have the mutation of names in the

revenue register to complete the delivery process.

It is further submitted that Defendant (i.e., donee)

has the absolute interest in the said suit property. She has

neither acted in violation of the said gift nor in any way

has encroached upon the land of Plaintiff. The allegations

 made in relation to encroachment and threats are false

and manufactured. It is the Plaintiff who is the culprit, as

he keeps on hurling abuses at the defendant and creates

a hostile environment to make it unsafe for Defendant and

coerce her to vacate the suit property to which she is

entitled to.

It is further submitted that the whole act of lodging

multiple cases against the Defendant and her legal heirs

shows that filing this suit and other criminal cases is an

afterthought. It is to be noted that during the pendency of

this instant Suit, Plaintiff has lodged one complaint case

bearing No. 6481 of 2022 with similar allegations as

compared to this instant suit.

It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has filed this

instant suit seeking to revoke the said gift which is, as per

the law, complete and irrevocable in nature after 22

years. Now this shows that Plaintiff’s case is an

afterthought.

14. That the averments made in para 11 are formal in

nature. Hence, no comment from the side of Defendant.

15. That with regards to the relief sought in para 12 of

the Plaint, it is most humbly submitted that the Defendant

has absolute right, title, and interest in the gifted property

and the said gift is complete and irrevocable in nature as

per the Mahomedan Law. All the statements to the

contrary made in the Plaint are deemed to have been

denied by the Defendant.

16. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the

case, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever

and the suit is fit to be dismissed with costs.