Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi And Others – Appellants
Versus
Syeda Arifa Parveen – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 12512 of 2025 [@ SLP (C) No. 16996 of 2022]
Decided on : 07-10-2025
(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – Re-appreciation of evidence is normally not undertaken by Supreme Court under Article 136 of Constitution of India – Re-appreciation is undertaken primarily to examine whether Trial Court and High Court have accurately recorded available findings – In a given case, reappreciation of evidence is not barred under Article 136 of Constitution of India – It is open to Supreme Court to interfere with findings of fact given by High Court if High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly – Party to a lis is not under legal obligation to file appeal against mere findings recorded by Court. (Paras 14 and 18)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 50 and 60 – Status of relationship – Opinion evidence – Section 50 does not make evidence of mere general reputation (without accompanying conduct) admissible as proof of a relationship – If conduct is of such a tenor, Court only gets to a relevant piece of evidence, namely, opinion of a person – It still remains for Court to weigh such evidence and come to its own opinion as to factum probandum, as to relationship in question – Conduct, being a perceptible external fact, must be proved by “direct evidence” as defined in Section 60 of Evidence Act – Witnesses must testify to what they personally saw or heard – Opinion expressed by conduct of any person as a member of family or of any person otherwise has special means of knowledge on the subject is a relevant fact – Perception permitted as a relevant fact does not automatically amount to a fact proved till the same passes test of discrimination, namely, triple test of relevancy, admissibility and competence of witness – Proof of status or relationship need not always necessarily be through documentary evidence, but, when oral evidence is the basis on which opinion is required to be formed by a Court, Courts are allowed to treat an opinion on conduct about a relationship as only a relevant fact – This should not be confused with ‘as factum probandum’. (Paras 26.1, 26.2, 27 and 33)
(C) Mohammedan Law – Gift – There are three essential conditions for an oral gift under Mohammedan Law – First, clear manifestation of wish to give on part of donor – Second, acceptance of gift by donee, which can be either implied or explicit – Third, taking of possession of subject-matter of gift by donee, either actually or constructively – Gift under Mohammedan Law does not require written document to be valid – An oral gift that fulfils three essential requisites is complete and irrevocable – Mere fact that a gift is reduced to writing does not change its nature or character – A written document recording gift does not become a formal instrument of gift – While Mohammedan Law allows for a gift to be made orally without a written document, validity of such a gift is contingent on demonstration of all three essential elements, particularly delivery of possession. (Paras 36.1, 36.2 and 38.2)
Facts of the case:
Following points arise for consideration: –
i. Whether impugned judgments suffer from perversity and misreading of evidence, warranting re-appreciation of evidence under Article 136 of Constitution of India?
ii. Whether High Court is correct in reversing the finding of Trial Court on the Oral Gift without an appeal/cross-appeal by the Plaintiff?
iii. Whether Plaintiff established her claim as daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit?
iv. Whether the claim of the Plaintiff under oral gift/Hiba is validly proved, and the title is derived to an extent of 10 acres?
v. Whether the suit for declaratory relief is barred by limitation?
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgments failed to appreciate effect of constructive notice in answering whether suit is within period of limitation or not. On consideration of circumstances and by applying precedents on the point, suit filed on 28.10.2013 is barred by limitation, particularly for reliefs sought for.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the Supreme Court's judgment in Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi And Others vs. Syeda Arifa Parveen:
1. Status of Relationship and Opinion Evidence * The Supreme Court held that while Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act allows opinion evidence from persons with special means of knowledge regarding relationships, perception alone does not automatically prove a fact; it must pass the "triple test" of relevancy, admissibility, and competence. * The Court found that the Trial and High Courts failed to independently assess the credibility of the witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) and treated their opinions as absolute facts without weighing them against surrounding circumstances or the lack of documentary evidence (such as birth certificates or school records). * The Court emphasized that conduct is an intermediate step to infer opinion, not final proof of relationship, and the lower courts resorted to circular reasoning by relying on disputed documents to prove the relationship. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
2. Validity of Oral Gift (Hiba) * Under Mohammedan Law, an oral gift requires three essential conditions: clear manifestation of the donor's wish, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession (actual or constructive). * The Court ruled that the Plaintiff failed to prove the "delivery of possession" element. There was no evidence of mutation in the Plaintiff's name, no collection of rent, and the donor continued to have her name mutated in revenue records, casting doubt on the validity of the alleged gift. * The Court noted inconsistencies in the evidence, such as the donor requesting mutation for the entire property despite allegedly gifting 10 acres, and the lack of contemporaneous public knowledge of the gift. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
3. Procedural Illegality Regarding Modification of Decree * The Supreme Court found that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by modifying the Trial Court's decree to grant the Plaintiff ownership of the gifted 10 acres. * Since the Plaintiff did not file a cross-appeal or object to the specific finding regarding the oral gift, the High Court could not have enhanced her title beyond what the Trial Court had decreed (which was based on inheritance, not the disputed gift). * Citing Banarsi and others v. Ram Phal, the Court held that an appellate court cannot modify a decree to the prejudice of appellants and advantage of a respondent who has not appealed. (!) (!) (!)
4. Bar by Limitation * The Court held that the suit filed on 28.10.2013 was barred by limitation under Article 58 and Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. * The Court applied the principle of "constructive notice," finding that the Plaintiff's failure to mutate the property in her name or challenge the revenue records and sale deeds within a reasonable time (over 23 years) constituted negligence. * The cause of action was deemed to have accrued earlier (e.g., upon the execution of sale deeds or mutation in the husband's name), and the Plaintiff's long delay precluded the claim. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
5. Re-appreciation of Evidence * The Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 136 of the Constitution to re-appreciate evidence because the lower courts had made perverse findings and failed to accurately record available findings, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses and the application of legal principles on evidence and limitation. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Civil Appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 in RFA No. 200204 of 2019 in the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi. The Civil Appeal is at the instance of the Defendants in OS No. 212 of 2013 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kalaburagi. The sole Respondent is the Plaintiff.
3. The following chronology is prefaced before adverting to the pleadings, evidence and findings in the impugned judgments.
3.1 Khadijabee w/o Syed Abdul Basit filed OS No. 68 of 1971 against her brother for partition and separate possession of agricultural land in Sy.No. 107 measuring 24 acres and 28 guntas at village Kusnoor, Taluka and District Gulbarga (‘Suit Property’). On 27.10.1987, OS No. 68 of 1971 was decreed (Ex. P-1), declaring that the Suit Property belongs to Khadijabee. It is averred that on 05.12.1988, Khadijabee, under an oral gift/Hiba, conveyed to the Plaintiff 10 acres in Sy.No. 107. On 05.01.1989, the Memorandum of Gift (Ex. P-8) is stated to have been executed by Khadijabee in favour of Plaintiff. On 06.06.1989, registration of a change of rights (Ex. P-2) in the Record of Rights (‘ROR’) in favour of Khadijabee was carried out covering the entire extent of 24 acres and 28 guntas. Khadijabee died on 29.11.1990 (Ex. P-3). On 23.05.1991, Abdul Basit, the husband of Late Khadijabee, again got the mutation (Ex. D-2) effected for 24 acres and 28 guntas. On 25.02.1995, Abdul Bas (as set out in the sale deeds) sold, through five sale deeds (Exs. D-3 to D-7), the extent of 24 acres and 28 guntas in favour of Defendant nos. 1 to 5, and through Exs. D-9 to D-43, the Suit Property has been mutated in their names. On 09.09.2001, Abdul Basit died. On 28.10.2013, Syeda Arifa Parveen, w/o Mushtaq Ahmed, filed OS No. 212 of 2013, praying for the reliefs of declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Suit Property and perpetual injunction. The suit property is land Sy.No.107, admeasuring Ac. 24-28 Gts., situated at Village Kusnoor, Taluka and District Gulbarga. The Suit Property is bounded by a Government Road to the East, Sy.No.151 to the West, Sy.No.106 to the North, and Sy.No.119 to the South.
3.2 The Plaintiff, by way of amendment, prayed for a further declaration that the sale deeds alleged to be executed by Abdul Bas, dated 25.02.1995, in favour of Defendants are null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff (Exs. D-3 to D-7).
4. The averments in the plaint in support of the declaratory relief of title and cancellation of Exs. D-3 to D-7 state that Khadijabee died on 29.11.1990, and the Plaintiff is her only daughter and heir. Khadijabee’s husband is also deceased, and she left no other legal heirs. Khadijabee, during her lifetime, made an oral gift/Hiba of 10 Acres of land out of the Suit Property in favour of the Plaintiff on 05.12.1988, and delivered possession, which the Plaintiff accepted. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Gift Deed was executed on 05.01.1989. Based on the oral gift and succession, the Plaintiff claims to be the owner and in possession of the Suit Property. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant No. 1 was previously an agricultural servant of Khadijabee (original owner) on a yearly salary basis. The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants have no concern with either the ownership or possession of the suit land. Taking advantage of Dussehra Vacation, the plaintiff alleged that on 14.10.2013, the Defendants came to the suit land, tried to dispossess the Plaintiff by force, and asked her to vacate, claiming they had purchased the land. They also tried to stop agricultural operations. The Defendants claimed to have purchased portions of the Suit Property through registered sale deeds dated 25.02.1995, with the alleged vendor being Abdul Bas S/o Syed Hussain Saheb. The purchased portions are as follows: (i) Defendant No.1: 4 Acres 38 Guntas, (ii) Defendant No.2: 5 Acres, (iii) Defendant No.3: 5 Acres, (iv) Defendant No.
(1) Status of relationship – Opinion evidence – It is open to Supreme Court to interfere with findings of fact given by High Court if High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.(2) Perce....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the essential ingredients of a valid Hiba under the Mahomedan Law, the absence of a prescribed period for filing a suit fo....
(1) Mohammedan Law – Gift (Hiba) – For a valid gift declaration by donor is must – A gift cannot be implied.(2) Amendment of plaint – It is always open to court to allow an amendment if it is of the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and proof of oral Hiba under Mohammedan Law, and the requirement to establish possession and acceptance of a gift in property disputes....
A gift under Mohammedan law requires explicit acceptance and possession; failure to prove these elements results in denial of ownership claims.
Under the proviso, the Court should be "satisfied" that the case involves a "substantial question of law" and not a mere "question of law
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
