Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Criminal Probe Can't Continue Against Unknowns Sans Prima Facie Offence: Bombay HC Quashes CBI FIR
06 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadikari Bids Empathetic Farewell to Kerala High Court
06 Mar 2026
Compensation U/S 28A LA Act Not Restricted to Foundational Award: Bombay High Court
06 Mar 2026
Karnataka HC Issues Notice on Sri Lankan Judge's Right to be Forgotten Plea for Removing Alleged Defamatory Online Content
06 Mar 2026
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
06 Mar 2026
Shrivastava Highlights Bench-Bar Partnership in Farewell Speech
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Directs Urgent Monsoon Prep for Flood-Prone Kochi
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Abdul Sohail, Amjad – Appellant
Versus
Shakira Begum – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
The appellant herein is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.617 of 2013 on the file of Addl. Judge cum VI Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, the first respondent is plaintiff and second respondent is first defendant in the said suit. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 12-04-2018 in O.S.No.617 of 2013 by which the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.2. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint.
2. The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.617 of 2013 for partition of suit schedule property and for allotment of 1/4th share each to plaintiff and defendant No.1 and for allotment of half share to the defendant No.2. The plaintiff has claimed in the suit that the defendant No.1 is her elder sister and defendant No.2 is their brother. The suit schedule property is self acquired property of their father by name Mohammed Abdul Jabbar Khan and during his life time, he has constructed a building over the property. The father of plaintiff died intestate during 2005, the mothe
Trial court's failure to frame issues on gift deed validity led to erroneous decree, misapplying inheritance laws under Mohammedan Law.
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming an oral gift under Mahomedan Law, and the essential requirements for a valid oral gift must be satisfied.
(1) Mohammedan Law has well-defined rules of inheritance that come into effect upon death of ancestor.
(2) Registration of gift is not required under Mohammedan Law and unwritten and unregistered ....
Minors cannot be deprived of their ancestral property rights through relinquishment by a parent; such actions require explicit consent of the minors involved.
The court established that an oral gift requires clear proof of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession to be valid, which was not met in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and unambiguous intention of the donor, acceptance of the gift by the donee, and delivery of possession for a valid oral ....
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
Listen Article