Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Mr. Gopal Bhosale, Adv. Ms. Sangita Bhosle-patil, Adv. Mr. Ali Rauf Rahim, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rauf Rahim, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ameet Kr Deshpande, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mrs. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Palash Pareek, Adv.

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. (!) (!) (!) (!)