Law:

Section:

It was contended that the High Court as well as the subordinate Courts failed to notice a material circumstance that there was no reason at all why the alleged donor should have made any gift in favour of F and that the area given to him should be 5 times more than that gifted to his own daughters. It was also contended that even if there was a gift, it remained inchoate on account of non-delivery of possession.Some of the very important pieces of evidence having substantial effect one way or the other had not been correctly read. The alleged donor in his statement had made two categorical statements. One, that the possession of the land in dispute notwithstanding the gift claimed by F of 5/6th share in the property in dispute, was not with the donee. This was not a bare statement of possession. The alleged donor had also asserted that he had installed a tubewell in the land. This part of the statement of the alleged donor was not at all properly challenged in cross-examination. Any explanation worth the name neither in the evidence nor by F had been given as to why the alleged donor himself who remained alive challenged the claim of F, should have deprived his own 3 daughters (with whom there was even no allegation that he had any estrangement) of 5/6th of his property and why he should have shifted such a valuable property to somewhat remote relation; namely, the son of the brother of his wife. The remote in the sense that he had his own daughters and also children from his own daughters. The only explanation that the donor had treated F as his runs counter to the principles of Islam on the question of adoption as well as counter to the principles regarding protection of the interest of female relations in Islam.One of Fs witnesses admitted that when he appeared the possession of the land alleged to have been gifted to F was with the alleged donor. The explanation that he had turned F out from the land as if forcibly did not all fit in with the story relating to the suit.F failed to explain why the alleged donor could have made the gift by depriving his own 3 daughters.Another possible explanation why the alleged donor might have fallen out with the daughters…