Deed of gift must include possession delivery for validation. Court distinguishes between gift and sale.

The Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court dismissed the appeal, affirming lower courts' decisions that the deed of gift required possession delivery for validation. Emphasizing the distinction between a gift and a sale transaction, the Court held that despite the deed resembling a sale, lack of possession delivery rendered it invalid as a gift. As no possession passed to the appellant, the plaintiff's suit seeking possession of the land based on the deed of gift was rightfully dismissed by the lower courts.

---

---

Issues:
- Validity of a deed of gift without delivery of possession
- Nature of transaction in a deed of gift
- Requirement of delivery of possession for validating a gift

Analysis:

1. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession of a plot of land based on a deed of gift executed in his favor. The lower court found the deed of gift genuine but held it inoperative due to the lack of possession delivery to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif of Gonda.

2. The plaintiff appealed to the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Gonda, who concluded that possession remained with Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 after the sale deed, and Defendant No. 1 never possessed the land sold to him. The appellate judge found that no possession was delivered to the plaintiff, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the lower court's decree.

3. In the second appeal before the Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court, two main arguments were presented. Firstly, the plaintiff contended that the deed of gift, being a hiba-bil-ewaz deed, was valid even without possession delivery as it resembled a sale transaction. Secondly, it was argued that the donor had given whatever possession she could, making the gift valid.

4. The Court rejected the argument that the deed of gift was akin to a sale transaction, emphasizing the necessity of possession delivery to validate a gift. The absence of monetary consideration or services of monetary value rendered the deed a gift, requiring possession delivery for validation. As the lower courts found no possession passed to the appellant, the plaintiff derived no title under the gift.

5. The Court upheld the lower appellate court's finding that neither actual nor constructive possession was transferred to the appellant. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was rightfully dismissed by the lower courts. The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs, affirming the lower courts' decisions based on the lack of possession delivery to validate the gift.

---