Constructive delivery of possession can complete a Mohammedan law gift, and cancellation suits must be filed within limitation.

Under Mohammedan law, a gift of immovable property may be complete through constructive delivery of possession where physical handover is impracticable, such as when tenants occupy the property, provided the donor has otherwise divested dominion and done what is necessary to place the donee in control. The registered deed's express divestment, collection of rent in the donee's name, and mutation efforts supported completion of the gift. A suit to cancel the instrument was also governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and had to be filed within three years of knowledge of the facts entitling cancellation. As the plaintiff knew of the deed in earlier proceedings but sued later, the challenge was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a valid gift under Mohammedan law is complete by constructive delivery of possession where the property is in occupation of tenants and the donor has otherwise divested himself of dominion; (ii) Whether the suit to cancel the gift deed was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether a valid gift under Mohammedan law is complete by constructive delivery of possession where the property is in occupation of tenants and the donor has otherwise divested himself of dominion.

Analysis: A gift under Mohammedan law becomes complete when there is declaration, acceptance and transfer of possession, actual or constructive, in a manner the subject of gift permits. Where the property is in the hands of tenants or similar occupants, physical delivery is not indispensable if the donor does what is necessary to place the donee in control. The registered deed contained an express declaration of divestment, rent was being collected in the donee's name and the donor himself sought mutation of the donee's name in revenue records, which supported transfer of constructive possession.

Conclusion: The gift was complete in law and constructive possession was validly handed over; the finding to the contrary was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit to cancel the gift deed was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: A suit for cancellation or setting aside of an instrument is governed by Article 59, and limitation begins when the facts entitling the plaintiff to seek cancellation first become known. The plaintiff had knowledge of the gift deed during the proceedings before the Tahsildar, yet the suit was instituted beyond three years from such knowledge. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 also contemplates cancellation of void or voidable instruments on a timely challenge.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and this issue was decided against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The gift deed was upheld and the challenge to it failed on limitation as well as on the merits of delivery of possession, so the appellate court's decree was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Mohammedan law, a gift of immovable property may be completed by constructive delivery of possession when the donor has done all that is necessary to place the donee in control, and a suit to cancel such an instrument must be brought within three years from the date of knowledge under Article 59.

---