Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27797
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V Srishananda, J
Begum Reshma Banu – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Dastageer – Respondent
RSA No. 965 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Nagaraja
For the Respondents: T.Ranjini, M.Ravinson
Ownership claims in property disputes require proof of valid title rather than relying on defective or unregistered documents; under Mohammedan law, property gifting must adhere to the oral Hiba requirements rather than relying on invalid instruments derived from unregistered sales.
Headnote:The case involves a suit for possession of immovable property filed by a plaintiff claiming ownership via a registered gift deed executed by her husband, who allegedly derived title from an unregistered sale deed. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, holding the plaintiff failed to establish superior title. Under Mohammedan law, only an oral Hiba is recognized for gifting property, rendering the documentation relied upon by the plaintiff ineffective for transferring ownership. The central issue is whether the plaintiff established a valid title to the suit property to maintain a suit for possession against a defendant in existing possession. The court applied the rule that a possessor holds better title against the world except a true owner. It determined that since the plaintiff's husband held no valid title through the unregistered document, he could not transfer ownership, and the plaintiff’s reliance on a registered gift deed failed to establish legal ownership under the relevant personal law. The final outcome is that the admission of the second appeal is declined and the appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of proceedings and factual history of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. analysis of appellate arguments and the findings regarding the validity of title documents. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. requirement of valid title to claim possession under mohammedan law and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.96/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.03.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1603/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri S.Nagaraja, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.T.Ranjini, Advocate for Sri M.Ravinson, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their original ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.
4. Facts of the case are as under:
4.1 A suit for possession came to be filed in O.S No.1603/2012 on the file of V Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in respect of the following immovable property:
“All that piece and parcel of residential house bearing Municipal Door No.116, New No.128, totally measuring about 25 x 36 feet consolidating to 900 feet situated at Momin Nagar, 3rd Stage, Kesare, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru, and bounded on:
East by : Plaintiff’s property,
West by : Road,
North by : Road,
South by : Plaintiff’s property,”
4.2 Plaintiff claimed that she is the donee having had the registered gift deed from her husband Sri Nayaz Sharif. Therefore, she is the absolute owner of the suit property and defendant is in illegal possession of the suit property.
5. Suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the husband of the plaintiff did not possess any right to execute the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, and defendant is in occupation of the suit property based on independent title.
6. Learned Trial Judge based on the rival contentions of the parties raised the following issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff proves that the husband of the plaintiff became the owner of the schedule property by virtue of Will executed by his father, Anwar Sharif?
ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that her husband Nayaz Sharif executed the Hiba in favour of the plaintiff on 22.11.2011 and thereby the plaintiff became the owner of the schedule property?
iii. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is in unauthorized possession of the schedule property?
iv. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?
v. What order of decree?
7. In order to prove her case, plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1 and placed on record an unregistered sale deed based on which gift deed came to be marked, as Exhibit P-1, registered gift deed as Exhibit P-2, encumbrance certificate, SAS, consent letter issued by Islam Board, Police NCR and acknowledgment as Exhibits P-3 to P-10.
8. As against the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff, one Mudaseer Ahmed was examined as D.W.1 and Bibi Jan, was examined as D.W.2 who executed the registered gift deed in favour of the defendant.
9. On behalf of the defendant, general power of attorney, registered gift deed, voters’ ID, electricity bills, SAS declarations, Tax paid receipts, sale deed dated 15.03.1985 were exhibited and marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-10.
10. Learned Trial Judge on conclusion of the recording of evidence, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary
