Oral gift under Mahomedan law upheld where declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession were shown.

An oral gift of immovable property by a Mahomedan to his wife was treated as valid where the donor declared the gift, the donee accepted it, and possession was delivered. Continued residence by the husband or his receipt of rents did not by itself defeat the gift. In Bihar, Mahomedan law was applied as the rule of decision under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, supported by the Shariat Act, 1937, and Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act preserved Muslim law gifts from the registration requirement in Section 123. The Article 14 challenge also failed because the differential treatment of Mahomedans in this context was based on reasonable classification.

---

---

Issues: Whether an oral gift of immovable property made by a Mahomedan in favour of his wife was valid in Bihar, notwithstanding the requirements of registration under the Transfer of Property Act and the challenge based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The gift was found to have been declared by the donor, accepted by the donee, and followed by delivery of possession. In the case of a gift by a husband to his wife, continued residence or receipt of rents by the husband does not by itself invalidate the gift. The applicable rule of decision in Bihar was held to be Mahomedan law under Section 37 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, acting on justice, equity and good conscience, and the Shariat Act, 1937 supported the application of Muslim personal law to gifts of non-agricultural property. Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act preserved rules of Mahomedan law, and Section 123 could not be used to defeat such a gift. The objection under Article 14 also failed because the special treatment of Mahomedans in relation to gifts rested on a reasonable classification.

Conclusion: The oral gift was valid and enforceable in law, and the challenge to its validity failed.

---