Estoppel-Deed of gift arul=Denial of truth o] SlaI(.'IIl;'Il: contained ill Iile deed
Evidence-Lund ownership-s-Whether ac Is of tenants constitute evidence o]

Land Law-u-Giit=-Deliver) o] possession=-Compteuon of gif! o] land

* Court: Owen C.J.

In 1927 the respondent executed a document before witnesses in which
he declared that half of his sagia had become the property of his wife and
that she was in possession thereof. In 1930 the wife applied to the court
for an order for the registration of the hal! sagia in her name.

Held: (i) A gift must be completed by delivery. If delivery is made
the gift is complete and enforceable.

(ii ) Having handed over the document declaring possession, the re-
spondent is estopped from denying the truth of such declaration.

Revision

October 16, 1933. Owen c.J.: On January 16, 1927, Hassan
Mohammed Abu Kalaga, the respondent in this application for revision,
executed a document before witnesses by which he decared and ad-
mitted, inter alia, that half of sagia No. 33, Irtidi, belonging to him,
had become the property of his wife Halima Bint El Hag Mohammed,
and that she was at liberty to dispose of that half as she liked, without
his interference. The document went on to declare that she was in
possession of the half sagia and that he was prepared to carry out its
registration. There was no "dispute about this document, and its au-
thenticity was admitted.

In 1930, no registration having been effected, Halima, by her duly
authorized agent, applied to the court at Dongola for a declaration that
she was entitled to registration of her half sagia, and an order for such
registration. The respondent resisted the application on the ground,
apparently, that it did no! mean what it said, and that the gift, if it was
a gift. had not been completed by delivery of possession, and was there-
fore unenforceable. After various hearings, rehearings and appeals
the applicant's claim was dismissed by the district judge. The province
judge held that the district judge was right, and the case now comes
before this court on application for revision of the decision of the
province judge.

The district judge was not right. He appears to have thought
that the question as to whether it was sadag or not had something to do
with it. It had not. It was not sadag at all. He also seems to have
thought that prescription and "sale undisputed posession" before
1927 were relevant considerations. They were not, for obvious rea-
sons. The important points in the case were: what does the document
mean, and, if it means what it says, was the gift of the sagia completed
by delivery of possession?

The document is quite clear. There is no ambiguity about it;
the respondent cannot turn round now and say that it docs not mean
what it says or what he intended. He is bound by it, so far as it