Oral Gift Requires Clear Delivery Of Possession; Suit Held Time-Barred

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal by purchasers against a High Court decree that had recognised an alleged oral gift (hiba) and enlarged the trial court’s decree in a suit for declaration and injunction relating to 24 acres 28 guntas of agricultural land in Gulbarga (Kalaburagi). The appeal arose from RFA No. 200204 of 2019 before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, and challenged the plaintiff’s claim that she was the sole daughter and donee of ten acres by oral gift and successor to the remainder, and the High Court’s modification of the trial decree without any cross‑appeal.

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit (OS No. 212 of 2013). The Court held that the oral gift had not been proved because the essential element of delivery and continued possession was absent, that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the trial decree without a cross‑appeal, and that the cause of action for the reliefs sought was time‑barred. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The judgment further noted that the lower courts had, at places, “presume[d] possession in favour of Plaintiff on ipse dixit statements” and had failed to require contemporaneous acts of ownership or mutation that would corroborate a completed hiba.

Background The dispute originated from a 1987 partition decree that declared Khadijabee owner of Sy. No. 107 (24 acres 28 guntas). The plaintiff alleged that Khadijabee orally gifted 10 acres to her on 05.12.1988, executed a memorandum recording the past gift on 05.01.1989 (Ex. P‑8), and thereafter died in 1990. The plaintiff claimed title and possession as donee and eventual sole heir after the subsequent death of Khadijabee’s husband, Abdul Basit (2001). Defendants relied on registered sale deeds dated 25.02.1995 executed by an Abdul Bas (alleged to be Abdul Basit) in their favour and on subsequent mutation entries in revenue records (Exs. D‑3 to D‑7; D‑9 to D‑43), asserting bona fide purchase and long possession. The trial court partly decreed the plaintiff’s claim, rejecting the oral gift but declaring a 3/4th share (18 acres 21 guntas) in her favour; it limited the validity of the 1995 sale deeds to one‑quarter share. The High Court, however, reversed on the oral gift, held that delivery of possession of 10 acres was proved and awarded the plaintiff the 10 acres and a 3/4th share in the balance, substantially altering the decree without any cross‑appeal. On appeal, the Supreme Court re‑examined admissibility and sufficiency of oral opinion evidence under Section 50 and handwriting comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, reviewed authorities on hiba under Mohammedan law (including the need for declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession, and the role of contemporaneous acts such as mutation, collection of rents or other public acts), and applied the principle that an appellate court could not enlarge relief to the advantage of a respondent who had not appealed. The Court found that the plaintiff had not established continuous, corroborative acts of possession or mutation in her favour, that the trial court had impermissibly relied on comparisons and on interested witnesses without adequate testing, and that the plaintiff had delayed action for decades. Applying principles of constructive notice and limitation (Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act), the Court held the suit filed on 28.10.2013 to be barred by limitation for the reliefs sought. Result: impugned judgments were set aside; OS No. 212 of 2013 was dismissed; civil appeal was allowed. No interim directions were necessary and no order as to costs was made.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1187; Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [SLP (C) No. 16996 of 2022] Case Title: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rauf Rahim (Senior Counsel) and team For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kr Deshpande and team