' This regular second appeal has arisen out of a suit instituted by Mst. Perveen Akhtar respondent against the appellant seeking declaration to the effect that she was the owner in possession of the house situated in village Chicharwali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, with consequential relief in the form of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating or transferring the said house and interfering with her possession over it. The respondent based her claim of ownership of the aforementioned house on the ground that the same was given to her by the appellant at the time of her marriage in lieu of her dower amounting to Rs.15,000 which fact was also incorporated in the Nikahnama drawn up at the time of solemnisation of the marriage. The appellant denied the respondent's claim and pleaded that the entries regarding the transfer of the disputed house to the respondent in the Nikahnama were forged and were incorporated therein after the marriage.
The learned trial Court framed the following issue for the disposal of the suit:- ' Whether the disputed house was donated as dower by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of Nikah and the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed house? O.P.P.
' The respondent in support of her claim tendered in evidence Nikahnama Exh.P.1 and examined ljaz Ahmad and Abdul Wahid P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively besides herself entering the witness-box as P.W.3. The appellant, on the other hand, examined Taj Muhammad (D.W.1) and Niaz Muhammad (D.W.2) who simply deposed that they were present at the time of solemnisation of the parties' marriage and that a sum of Rs.15,000 was fixed as dower of the respondent. The appellant also appeared as D.W.3 and stated that the amount of Rs.15,000, which was fixed as dower, was not paid to the respondent and was still due to her. He denied the respondent's contention that the disputed house was given by him to her in lieu of her dower. The learned trial Court, after considering the parties' above evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant had given the disputed house to the respondent in lieu of her dower and accordingly decreed her suit on 12-6- 1980. The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 31-1-1982. The appellant challenged the judgments and decrees of the Courts below by filing the present appeal in this Court, which was admitted to regular hearing to consider the sole legal question raised by him in the appeal as to whether the mere entry ii the Nikahnama that the disputed house was given in lieu of dower to the respondent had failed to convey its title to the respondent in view of the provisions of section 17 read with section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the only documentary evidence to prove the transfer of the disputed house by the appellant in favour of the respondent is Nikahnama Ex.P.1, which being a document requiring registration under section 17 of the Registra tion Act, cannot operate to create any right, title or interest in the disputed house on account of non-registration in view of the provisions of section 49 of the aforementioned Act.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the provisions of the Registration Act referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present case because the respondent had acquired the disputed house under Hibba-bil-Ewaz inasmuch as the appellant had made a gift of the house in favour of the respondent in consideration of the amount of Rs.15,000 payable by him as dower to her. According to the learned counsel for the respondent no registered instrument to give effect to the factum of gift as contemplated by section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act was required as the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Act dealing with gifts are not applicable to affect any rule of Muslim Law as provided in section 129 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the judgment of this Court in Mst. Allah Jawai v. Allah Ditta PLD 1975 Lah. 1399 where it was held that transfer of a house by a Muslim husband in favour of his wife in lieu of her dower was essentially a gift and as such it did not require to be effected through a registered document.
4. The respondent is admittedly in possession of the disputed house which, according to her, was delivered to her at the time of her marriage. Both the Courts below have rejected the appellant's contention that the disputed house had been leased out to the respondent's parents by the appellant prior to his marriage with the respondent. The A possession of the house having been acquired by the respondent in consideration of relinquishment of her right to receive the amount of dower fixed at the time of her marriage with the appellant amounts to the delivery of possession of the house under Hibba-bil-Ewaz. It was, therefore, not necessary to evidence the factum of gift by executing any formal document, as according to the rule of Muslim Law a gift of property can be effected orally by delivering the possession of the B property by the donor. The entry regarding the gift of the disputed house in the relevant column of Nikahnama Exh.P.1 was made merely to show how the dower fixed at the time of marriage had been paid to the wife. That entry in itself was not the only piece of evidence to prove the factum of gift. The objection raised by the appellant that Exh.P.1 being an unregistered document does not create any interest or right in the disputed house in favour of the respondent in view of the provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act is not tenable in view c of the fact that the disputed house was given by the appellant to the respondent in lieu of her dower and the transaction under the circum stances must be considered as one of Hibba-bil-Ewaz. The provisions, of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act are not attracted to the facts of the case and as held in Mst. Allah Jawai's case the transfer of property by the husband to his wife in lieu of her dower can be effected even without a registered instrument.
' For the foregoing reasons there is no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs.