In Mulla's Principles of Mohammadan Law in section 138 "gift" has been defined as followed: "A Hiba or gift is a transfer of property made immediately and without any exchange by one person to another and accepted by or on behalf of the latter." From this definition I do not find any distinction between gift and Hiba. Hiba is Arabic name of gift. ( Hafiz Ahmed Vs. Ahmedur Rahman and others, 1995, 24 CLC (HCD) [7480] )

Mere absence of a recital in the deed of gift that the donee accepted the offer of gift made by the donor does not render a deed of gift invalid where it is found that following the making of the deed of gift the donee duly went into possession of the gifted property. ( Mst. Jobeda Khatun Vs. Md. Solemanuddin, 17 BLD (HCD) 181 ) 

The completion of an oral gift under Muslim Law takes place as soon as there is a declaration of gift by the doner and delivery of possession of the property under the gift is made to the donee by the donor. Nothing remains to be done to make the gift a valid one enforceable under law. No reasonable answer could be given as to why a gift of this nature should be further required to be effected by a registered instrument. Had an oral gift under Muslim Law remained imperfect unless some­thing in writing was to make it a valid gift the question of registration might have arisen. This being not so in the case of such a gift, the requirement of a registered instrument would seen to be redundant. On the other hand, if there is no oral gift but by an unregistered instrument a person seeks to made a gift of immovable properly, it must be registered. When the per­formance of one kind of obligations imposed under a law makes certain act complete, a sep­arate kind of obligation cannot be introduced to nullify the same unless expressly provided in another law. There are no degrees of comple­tion. When an act is complete, nothing further is required to make it more complete. If, on the fulfillment of the three conditions mentioned above, an oral gift by a Muslim of immovable property is complete, its completeness cannot be destroyed by the requirement of a registered instrument under section 26C as this has not been expressly applied to such gift. ( Jabed Ali Vs. Abu Shaikh and others, 1982, 11 CLC (AD) [2463])

See also Mosharraf Hossain (Md.) and others Vs. Akhtar Hossain, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD) [7110].