DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS V. SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN 2025 INSC 1187:

DATE: 07/10/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

FACTS:

The dispute concerns agricultural land measuring 24 acres and 28 guntas in Survey No. 107 at Village Kusnoor, Gulbarga. Originally owned by Khadijabee, the land was declared to belong to her through a decree in OS No. 68 of 1971. It was alleged that on 05.12.1988, she orally gifted (Hiba) 10 acres of the land to her daughter, the Plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, followed by a memorandum of gift dated 05.01.1989. Khadijabee died on 29.11.1990, and her husband, Abdul Basit, allegedly mutated the entire property in his name in 1991. In 1995, he executed five sale deeds conveying the entire 24 acres and 28 guntas to the Defendants, who claimed to be bona fide purchasers and continued in possession thereafter. The Plaintiff filed OS No. 212 of 2013 seeking a declaration of ownership, cancellation of the sale deeds, and a permanent injunction, asserting that the sales were fraudulent and that she, as Khadijabee’s sole heir and donee under the oral gift, was the rightful owner.

The Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s lineage and the existence of any oral gift, contending that Khadijabee and Abdul Basit died issueless and that Abdul Basit had full ownership to sell the property. The Trial Court held that the Plaintiff was indeed the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit but disbelieved the oral gift for want of proof of possession, granting her a 3/4th share by succession. The High Court, while upholding the Plaintiff’s status as daughter, modified the decree and held that the oral gift was validly proved, thereby declaring her the absolute owner of 10 acres by gift and a 3/4th share in the remaining land. Aggrieved, the Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the findings as perverse, time-barred, and beyond the High Court’s jurisdiction.

ISSUES:

The case raised key issues: whether the impugned judgments of the lower courts suffered from perversity or misreading of evidence warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution; whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s finding on the oral gift in the absence of a cross-appeal by the Plaintiff; whether the Plaintiff had conclusively established her status as the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit; whether the alleged oral gift (Hiba) was validly proved in accordance with Mohammedan Law; and whether the Plaintiff’s suit for declaratory relief was barred by limitation.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit (OS No. 212 of 2013). The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the alleged oral gift (Hiba) or her possession of the suit property and further found that the suit was barred by limitation, having been filed nearly 23 years after the cause of action arose. No order as to costs was made.

The Court found that both the Trial Court and the High Court had erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the Plaintiff’s claimed status as the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit. The findings of the lower courts were termed perverse for failing to test the credibility and admissibility of oral testimony, particularly when the Plaintiff withheld key documents such as school and ration records that could have substantiated her claim. The Supreme Court observed that while oral evidence can establish familial relationships under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, the courts below applied the standard too liberally without corroboration. The Court emphasized that proof of relationship based solely on conduct or opinion must be treated as a relevant fact and not as factum probandum, and concluded that the lower courts’ acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claimed status lacked adherence to the evidentiary standard required in law.

On the issue of the oral gift (Hiba), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the three essential requirements under Mohammedan Law, declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession. It held that the Plaintiff failed to establish delivery of possession, the most critical element, since revenue records consistently showed the property in the names of Khadijabee, then Abdul Basit, and thereafter the Defendants. The Court noted inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s documents, including Ex. P-8 (the memorandum of gift), which contradicted the claim that possession had been transferred in 1988. Relying on precedents such as Hafeeza Bibi v. Sk. Farid and Rasheeda Khatoon v. Ashiq Ali, the Court ruled that the absence of mutation, rent collection, or any overt act showing control negated the existence of a valid Hiba. Furthermore, the Court found that the suit was time-barred under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, as the Plaintiff failed to act on her alleged rights from 1989 to 2013 despite clear opportunities and constructive notice of the transactions. The long delay and inaction amounted to negligence, extinguishing her claim in law.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of evidentiary rigor in property and succession disputes, especially those grounded in personal law. By rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim of being the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit, the Court reaffirmed that mere oral assertions, even if supported by witness opinion under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, cannot substitute for documentary proof when such evidence is available but withheld. The ruling reinforces that findings of fact by lower courts must be based on credible and corroborative evidence, not presumptions or unverified testimony. The Court’s criticism of the High Court’s approach highlights that appellate interference with a trial court’s factual findings, particularly in the absence of a cross-appeal—must be exercised with restraint, and only where findings are demonstrably perverse or unsupported by material evidence.

Furthermore, the judgment provides clarity on the legal principles governing oral gifts (Hiba) under Mohammedan Law, emphasizing that delivery of possession is indispensable to their validity. The Court’s reliance on precedents such as Hafeeza Bibi v. Sk. Farid reiterates that documentary records, revenue entries, and acts of dominion serve as vital indicators of possession and ownership. The decision also underscores the strict application of limitation law, noting that delayed litigation after decades of inaction cannot revive extinguished rights. By combining principles of evidentiary law, personal law, and limitation, the Court’s ruling serves as a cautionary precedent against speculative or stale property claims and reinforces judicial discipline in reappreciating evidence within the hierarchical framework of appellate review.