Supreme Court on Oral Gifts: Why Possession is Key in Muslim Law (Hiba)

Case Title: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others vs. Syeda Arifa ParveenCase Title: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others vs. Syeda Arifa Parveen

The Supreme Court clarified that a valid Hiba (gift under Muslim Law) requires conclusive proof of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Mere oral claims or a memorandum are insufficient without contemporaneous evidence of the donee acting upon the gift. The Court also emphasized that declaratory suits must be filed within three years from when the right to sue first accrues, and long delays can render a suit barred by limitation.

Facts Of The Case:

Khadijabee was the original owner of an agricultural land. She allegedly made an oral gift (Hiba) of 10 acres to her daughter, Syeda Arifa Parveen (the Plaintiff), in 1988, followed by a memorandum of gift in 1989. After Khadijabee’s death in 1990, her husband, Abdul Basit, mutated the entire property in his name. In 1995, he sold the entire land to various purchasers (the Defendants) through registered sale deeds, and their names were mutated in the revenue records. The Plaintiff filed a suit in 2013, claiming ownership based on the oral gift and as the sole heir, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds were null and void. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, rejecting the oral gift but granting her a share as an heir. The High Court reversed the finding on the oral gift, upholding it and granting her a larger share. The Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the validity of the oral gift, the proof of the Plaintiff’s familial relationship, and the suit’s limitation.

Procedural History:

The case originated as Original Suit No. 212 of 2013 filed by Syeda Arifa Parveen before the Principal Senior Civil Judge in Kalaburagi. The Trial Court partially decreed the suit, rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of an oral gift (Hiba) but declaring her the owner of a 3/4th share in the property as an heir. Dissatisfied, the defendants filed Regular First Appeal No. 200204 of 2019 before the High Court of Karnataka (Kalaburagi Bench). The High Court, through its impugned judgment, modified the decree by overturning the Trial Court’s finding on the oral gift, thereby granting the plaintiff ownership of the 10 acres from the gift in addition to a share in the remaining property. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 16996 of 2022), which was converted into the present Civil Appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of both lower courts and dismissing the plaintiff’s original suit in its entirety.

READ ALSO:Supreme Court on PMLA: Statutory Appeal Must Be Exhausted Before Seeking Quashing, Rules in JSW Case

Court Observation:

The Supreme Court made several critical observations while allowing the appeal. It held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by substantially modifying the decree in the plaintiff’s favour on the oral gift claim without a cross-appeal from her. On merits, the Court found the plaintiff failed to prove she was Khadijabee’s daughter, as the oral evidence of interested witnesses was unreliable and lacked corroboration from any documentary proof like birth or school records. Crucially, the Court observed that the claim of a valid Hiba (gift) utterly failed as there was no evidence, actual or constructive, of delivery of possession to the plaintiff, which is an essential condition under Muslim Law. Furthermore, the suit was held to be barred by limitation, as the cause of action first arose in 1989/1995, and the plaintiff’s delay of over two decades, despite constructive notice of the rival claims, was fatal.

Final Decision & Judgement:

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal filed by the defendants. It set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court. Consequently, the plaintiff’s original suit (O.S. No. 212 of 2013) was dismissed in its entirety. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her status as the daughter of the original owner, Khadijabee, and also failed to establish a valid oral gift (Hiba) due to a complete lack of evidence showing delivery of possession. Furthermore, the suit was declared barred by limitation as it was filed more than two decades after the alleged cause of action first arose. The defendants’ title, derived from the registered sale deeds, was thus upheld.

Case Details:

Case Title: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others vs. Syeda Arifa Parveen
Citation: 2025 INSC 1187
Civil Appeal No. (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16996 of 2022)
Date of Judgement: October 07, 2025
Judges/Justice Name: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
 Download The Judgement Here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *