Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Proof of Gift Deed and Date of Making a Gift Courts emphasize that the date of making a gift, especially an oral gift, is a question of fact that must be specifically proved through evidence. Mere assertion is insufficient; courts require clear evidence of delivery of possession and intent at a specific time. For instance, in Penumatcha Satyanarayana Raju VS Matta Suseela - Andhra Pradesh, the document was not proved, and the gift deed was held invalid if not specifically proved. Similarly, A. K. Hafasha VS Noorjahan - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 958 highlights that the oral gift was not proved due to unreliable witness testimony and lack of proof of possession transfer at the time of gift.Analysis: Courts generally require specific proof of the date and delivery of possession for oral gifts. When not specifically pleaded or proved, oral gifts are not deemed proved, and their validity is questionable.Penumatcha Satyanarayana Raju VS Matta Suseela - Andhra Pradesh, A. K. Hafasha VS Noorjahan - Madras
Legal Principles Regarding Oral Gifts Under Muhammadan Law, an oral gift can be valid without registration if the three essential ingredients—delivery of possession, intention to gift, and acceptance—are proved. Noor Ahmad VS Mohd. Ahmad - Allahabad and Mohd. Farooq Siddiqui VS Saeeda Bano - Allahabad affirm that oral gifts do not necessarily require registration, but proof of the three ingredients is crucial. Witness testimony and circumstances are vital to establish validity. Conversely, if the evidence of delivery or intent is absent, the gift remains unproved.Analysis: The validity of oral gifts hinges on proof of delivery and intent rather than documentation alone. Courts scrutinize evidence thoroughly before deeming such gifts proved.Noor Ahmad VS Mohd. Ahmad - Allahabad, Mohd. Farooq Siddiqui VS Saeeda Bano - Allahabad
Effect of Not Specifically Pleading or Proving the Date When the date of gift is not specifically pleaded or proved, courts tend to disregard the gift's validity, especially for oral gifts. In Urmila Devi, w/o Bansi Yadav vs Jagmaniya Devi, W/o Late Ugan Mahto - Jharkhand, the date of death of the donor was not proved, leading to the conclusion that the gift was not proved. Similarly, Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi VS Syeda Arifa Parveen - Supreme Court notes that oral gifts are incomplete unless possession transfer is established at a specific time.Analysis: The absence of specific pleading or proof of the date undermines the claim of a valid gift, especially when the timing is crucial to establish the gift's validity.Urmila Devi, w/o Bansi Yadav vs Jagmaniya Devi, W/o Late Ugan Mahto - Jharkhand, Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi VS Syeda Arifa Parveen - Supreme Court
Legal Presumption and Burden of Proof Courts presume that oral gifts require strict proof of the date and delivery. If evidence is imperfect or not specifically pleaded, courts are justified in rejecting the proof. For example, UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN - Supreme Court states that admissions or pleadings are necessary to establish the gift, and absence of such leads to the gift being not proved.Analysis: The onus is on the claimant to specifically plead and prove the date and circumstances of the gift; failure to do so results in the gift being not established legally.UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN - Supreme Court
Implications of Registration and Formalities While registration is not mandatory for oral gifts under Muhammadan Law, proof of the three ingredients remains essential. Courts recognize that mere registration does not prove the gift if the ingredients are absent, as seen in Noor Ahmad VS Mohd. Ahmad - Allahabad.Analysis:Legal validity depends on proving the essential elements rather than registration alone.Noor Ahmad VS Mohd. Ahmad - Allahabad
Courts generally hold that an oral gift is not to be deemed proved merely by absence of specific pleadings or lack of direct evidence of the date of making the gift. The date must be specifically pleaded and proved, especially through delivery of possession and clear intent. When such proof is not specifically established, oral gifts are not legally deemed proved, and their validity is questionable. The legal emphasis remains on strict proof of the elements constituting a valid gift, rather than on formalities like registration.References:Penumatcha Satyanarayana Raju VS Matta Suseela - Andhra Pradesh, A. K. Hafasha VS Noorjahan - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 958, Noor Ahmad VS Mohd. Ahmad - Allahabad, Urmila Devi, w/o Bansi Yadav vs Jagmaniya Devi, W/o Late Ugan Mahto - Jharkhand, Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi VS Syeda Arifa Parveen - Supreme Court, UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN - Supreme Court
In property disputes, especially those involving oral gifts (known as Hiba under Muslim Law), claimants often face hurdles when trying to establish ownership. A common question arises: Need Judgements on the Point that Date of Making a Gift if Not Pleaded Specifically nor Proved Specifically Oral Gift Not to be Deemed as Proved? This issue is critical because courts rigorously scrutinize such claims to prevent fraudulent transfers.
This blog post delves into the legal position established by Indian courts, drawing from landmark judgments. We'll examine why the specific pleading and proof of the gift's date is indispensable, supported by direct quotes and analysis. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under Muslim Law, oral gifts are permissible without registration, unlike general provisions under the Transfer of Property Act. However, validity hinges on three essentials: declaration of gift, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession. Courts have consistently ruled that the date of making the gift is a material fact that must be specifically pleaded in the plaint or written statement and proved through cogent evidence. Failure to do so renders the gift unproved. A. K. Hafasha VS Noorjahan - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 958
As the Supreme Court observed in a key ruling: The plaintiff has set up his title by virtue of oral gift and has proved the said essentials by adducing evidences... In view thereof, I find no substance in the ground taken by the appellant that the impugned judgments and decrees are bad which upheld the plaintiff's claim of oral gift in absence of the pleading of the essentials of oral gift. A. K. Hafasha VS Noorjahan - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 958 Yet, the same judgment clarifies the necessity of the date: In the plaint, he made the case that Najma died after making over possession of the tenure to him. This statement is, untrue, because Najma had been dispossessed of the tenure in August 1942 and was not in possession of it at the time of the alleged gift. A. K. Hafasha VS Noorjahan - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 958
The Calcutta High Court emphasized: It is incumbent on the defendants/appellants to prove their case of oral heba... the defendants have not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence. Sufia Khatijn (Musstt. ) & Ors. VS Bhoimuddin Sheikh (Md. ) @ Ahmed & Anr. - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 335
Pleadings must explicitly state the date to allow the opponent to respond effectively. In cases where this is absent, courts reject the claim. For instance, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held: It is unknown to law that a Mohammadan can make an oral gift within the confines of his house and without the presence of anybody else... When claims of oral gifts are made, the law requires strict evidence to establish that an oral gift had in fact been made. Baladin and Others VS Lallu Mal Jain and Others - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 1321
Additional rulings reinforce this. In one matter, the oral gift has not been mentioned specifically in the written statement as well as in the lawyers notice. S. G. Mahaboob Basha (Died) & Others VS Tmt. Najumunnissa - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 5854 - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 5854 Similarly, Admittedly, oral gift has got to be proved, but the same has not been proved in this case. Sirajudeen VS Sadurudeen - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 782 - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 782
Proof extends beyond words—it requires evidence of possession delivery on that date. The Family Court in a dispute noted: When an oral gift is pleaded, it has to be proved without any iota of doubt. When there is any discrepancy in the evidence with reference to oral gift, the same cannot be accepted. Kuzhichakandathil Puthiyapurayil Ayishabi, D/o. K. O. P. Eramullan, Kalliasseri Amsom VS Thalayantakath Moidu S/o. Ibrayinkutty - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 1037 - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 1037
Courts examine circumstances like prior possession or inconsistencies. In another case, defendant has not successfully proved the oral sale gift. Rakhal @ Rakhal Chandra Murmu VS Pama Murmu - 2016 Supreme(Ori) 646 - 2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 646 And where essentials were met with specific pleading: The essentials of oral gift have been proved by the plaintiff in support of his claim of oral gift which was specifically pleaded in the plaint. Mohammad Sagir @ Md. Sagir Mansuai VS Mohammad Sabir - 2010 Supreme(Jhk) 771 - 2010 0 Supreme(Jhk) 771
From other precedents, the absence of date proof undermines claims: Though the document-Ex.B4 does not refer to the date 30.01.2002 nor indicate the oral Hiba made by the 4th defendant on 30.01.2002. Sukriya Mustafa VS Hajira Kabir - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 1584 - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1584 This highlights that even supporting documents must align with the pleaded date.
While oral gifts don't need writing, timing is non-negotiable. Registration isn't mandatory Noor Ahmad VS Mohd. Ahmad - Allahabad, but imperfect evidence leads to rejection. Courts presume no validity without strict proof: If evidence is lacking on any of the requirements of a valid gift, law cannot presume that a valid gift has been orally made. Baladin and Others VS Lallu Mal Jain and Others - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 1321
In scenarios with partial proof, like construction post-gift, specific pleading of dates strengthens claims: He specifically pleaded that after the execution of the gift deed dated 8.2.1968 and 30.10.1968... Archana Tyagi vs Yaduraj Narain - 2025 Supreme(All) 3118 - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3118
Further cases affirm the principle. In disputes over land, failure to prove the date alongside possession dooms the gift: He would also point out that as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit land was infact standing in the name of Fathima... the alleged oral gift deed is dtd. 2... Rabanabi VS Bashyasab - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 1552 - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1552
Legal analyses stress: Courts require specific proof of date and delivery for oral gifts; absence renders them unproved. Penumatcha Satyanarayana Raju VS Matta Suseela - Andhra PradeshA. K. Hafasha VS Noorjahan - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 958 The onus demands pleadings and evidence, or the claim fails. UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN - Supreme Court
Judicial consensus is clear: An oral gift under Muslim Law is not deemed proved if the date of making the gift is not specifically pleaded nor proved. This safeguards against unsubstantiated claims, ensuring only genuine transfers prevail. Key takeaways:
References include Sufia Khatijn (Musstt. ) & Ors. VS Bhoimuddin Sheikh (Md. ) @ Ahmed & Anr. - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 335, Baladin and Others VS Lallu Mal Jain and Others - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 1321, A. K. Hafasha VS Noorjahan - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 958, Kuzhichakandathil Puthiyapurayil Ayishabi, D/o. K. O. P. Eramullan, Kalliasseri Amsom VS Thalayantakath Moidu S/o. Ibrayinkutty - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 1037 - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 1037, Sirajudeen VS Sadurudeen - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 782 - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 782, Mohammad Sagir @ Md. Sagir Mansuai VS Mohammad Sabir - 2010 Supreme(Jhk) 771 - 2010 0 Supreme(Jhk) 771, S. G. Mahaboob Basha (Died) & Others VS Tmt. Najumunnissa - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 5854 - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 5854, Penumatcha Satyanarayana Raju VS Matta Suseela - Andhra Pradesh, Noor Ahmad VS Mohd. Ahmad - Allahabad, UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN - Supreme Court
This overview draws solely from cited judgments. For personalized guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed on property laws to protect your rights.
#OralGift #MuslimLaw #HibaProof
that the document was not proved. ... Therefore, it is erroneous to hold that the gift deed is not proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. ... The written statement must deal specifically, with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substan....
time of the oral gift and also the date of declaration deed. ... The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the present case the defendants had not proved the oral gift and the only witness examined by the defendants to prove the oral gift is DW2, whose evidence is unreliable. ... The respondent No.1-plaintiff cl....
Ali and Sajjad if seen, it would give a clear indication that each of the witnesses has given a different date relating to making of the oral gift by Barati Mian. ... If this is to be taken into account then it would indicate that the gift-deed would have been made in the year 1947. Thus, it would be seen that all the witnesses of the defendants have stated different timelines regarding the date....
Hence, the court concluded that the Plaintiff could not prove either actual or constructive possession, thereby making the oral gift incomplete. ... 9.2 It overturned the Trial Court’s findings on the oral gift. The High Court found that the evidence proved the delivery of possession of 10 acres; thereby, completing the oral gift. ......
Both parties led evidence before the court on the point of date of death of Jagarnath Mahto, but none of them was able to prove the date of death as claimed by them and accordingly the court has recorded a finding that the date of death of Jagarnath Mahto could not be proved by either party. ... The gift deed being a registered document and in view of the fact that the ....
has not specifically denied its execution. ... admitted into evidence on the ground that certified copy of rectified gift deed was not a public document and the Hukumnama was not duly Under section 123 of The Transfer of Property Act, for the purpose of this Court that certified copy of sale deed is admissible in evidence and there was no need
From the aforesaid discussion of the propositions of law it is discernible that a gift under the Muhammadan Law can be an oral gift and need not be registered; that a written instrument does not, under all circumstances require registration; that to be a valid gift under the Muhammadan Law three essential ... It is submitted that merely to recognize the oral#H....
He specifically pleaded that after the execution of the gift deed dated 8.2.1968 and 30.10.1968, he had constructed Nandan cinema hall in the year 1974, after taking due permission and had operated the cinema hall on the gifted land, in accordance with the terms of the gift deed for a period of 53 years ... matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be #HL_STAR....
Though the document-Ex.B4 does not refer to the date 30.01.2002 nor indicate the oral Hiba made by the 4th defendant on 30.01.2002. ... The Courts below have specifically held that the Settlement Deed relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff is not proved. There are two aspects. The Settlement Deed is also a Mohammedan gift and it should be proved by est....
He would also point out that as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit land was infact standing in the name of Fathima, which is evident from Exs.D1 and D2 and the said fact would clearly establish that the alleged gift set up by defendant No.6 is not substantiated. ... Coupled with this document, he would further point out that the alleged oral gift deed is dtd. 2....
Family Court observed that the pleadings are inconsistent and the evidence is that of interested witnesses. Cross-examination indicates that neither AW1 or AW2 has no clear idea whether the gift was in favour of the petitioner or her children jointly or the petitioner alone. When an oral gift is pleaded, it has to be proved without any iota of doubt. When there is any discrepancy in the evidence with reference to oral gift, the same cannot be accepted.
It is not in dispute that Habija Beevi is having a share in the suit property. The appellant/Sirajudeen is the son of one Mumtaj Begum, who is the sister of Habija Beevi and he resided in the suit property after her death. Merely because the appellant/Sirajudeen resided in the suit property, the same cannot be taken advantage by him that there is a Hiba. Admittedly, oral gift has got to be proved, but the same has not been proved in this case.
Both the courts held that there was a partition between Mangal, husband of the plaintiff and his brothers. It was further held that defendant has not successfully proved the oral sale gift. Thus after death of Mangal, the plaintiff being the sole surviving heir succeeds to the property of Mangal.
The essentials of oral gift have been proved by the plaintiff• in support of his claim of oral gift which was specifically pleaded in the plaint. In view thereof, I find no substance in the ground taken by the appellant that the impugned judgments and decrees are bad which upheld the plaintiff's claim of oral gift in absence of the pleading of the essentials of oral gift. I, therefore, find no error in the impugned judgment and decree of learned Lower Appellate Court giving r....
But the oral gift has not been mentioned specifically in the written statement as well as in the lawyers notice. Significantly D.W.1/deceased first appellant(father of plaintiff) in his chief examination (before the Court) on 2. 2001 has not whispered anything about the oral gift. Only during his chief examination on 22. 2001, he has mentioned about the HIBA. In the written statement filed by defendants 1 to 6 and 8, it is specifically stated that Ameena Bee has executed the ....
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
