LAW FOR ALL

whether a valid registration of Ex.A-2 has taken place at all. The reason is that the document was presented for registration by a power of attorney. Detailed procedure in prescribed under the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, in this regard. It is not clear that the procedure was followed. Another aspect of the matter is about delivery of possession. 35. Though it is in respect of a gift made by a Muslim, that delivery of possession is treated as an independent requirement, the same becomes relevant as regards gifts governed by Section 123 of the TP Act also in the context of ascertaining the consent of the party to the transaction. A transfer through gift becomes complete, only when it is made by the donar and accepted by the donee. If what is gifted is an item of immovable property, acceptance can be discerned from the act of delivery of possession. In case, the property is in possession of a tenant, the delivery can be affected through attornment of tenancy. If the donar and donee reside in the gifted premises, no independent act of delivery possession becomes necessary. Where, however, the property is in possession of a different individual and no specific acts of bringing the possession under the control of donee are taken, the effectiveness of acceptance of the gift suffers a dent. 36. The suit schedule property, in the instant case, was in the possession of the defendant even before the gift was made. That was accepted by PW-1 and nothing contrary was indicated. After Ex.A-1 also, the defendant continued to be in possession. Though it was stated in the plaint that the defendant remained in possession of the property with the consent of the 1st plaintiff, who deposed as PW-2, he did not state the manner in which such consent was given. For all practical purposes, Ex.A-2 did not bring about any qualitative change of the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property. Therefore, from this point of view also, there was no valid gift in favour of the 1st plaintiff.