property in favour of the third defendant. It is stated by Saraummal in the document that the same is executed as she wants the property to be possessed by the third defendant also along with her for his livelihood. It was, however, made clear by Saraummal in the document that the third defendant shall not alienate the rights conferred in terms of the document without her junction. It was also made clear by Saraummal in the document that if she dies earlier, the third defendant will be entitled only to possess and enjoy the property during his lifetime and he will not be entitled to have any other rights in the property. Of course, it is stated by Saraummal in the document that the property is one to be inherited by their children after their death. A close reading of the document as a whole reveals to me that the said recital is not a disposition in favour of their children including unborn, but only an explanation for limiting the estate granted in favour of the third defendant. In other words, according to me, what Saraummal meant in terms of the said recital is only that the third defendant shall not alienate the property in favour of strangers. Insofar as the necessary ingredients of a gift under the Mohammedan law, namely (i) declaration of gift by the donor; (ii) acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee and (iii) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee are not satisfied, Ext.A11 cannot be construed as a gift in favour of the children of the third defendant born to Saraummal. The same cannot also be construed as a will, as under the Mohammedan l aw, there cannot be any
