Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi vs Syeda Arifa Parveen - 2025 INSC 1187 Muslim Law- Oral Gift -Ss. 50,60, 73 Evidence Act

Muslim Law -Oral Gift - Hiba- To constitute a valid conveyance through an oral gift, the three contemporaneous conditions of declaration by donor, acceptance by donee, possession by donee and to continue to establish possession through contemporaneous evidence to show that Hiba is acted upon. The Hiba is not used as a surprise instrument and cannot sprout into a transfer of property as per the convenience of a party. Moreover, to keep in line with the sanctity of Hiba, it is in the interest of the donor, donee and a third person interested in the subject matter that Hiba is acted upon by completing all three essential requirements in public knowledge rather than in secrecy. The Courts appreciate fulfilment of contemporaneous requirements and possession through evidence while recognising conveyance through an oral gift. Possession is one of the important conditions to constitute a valid oral gift. The courts presume possession of a party from the circumstances pleaded and proved. (Para 39)

Muslim Law - The oral gift and the effect of a valid oral gift - There are three essential conditions for an oral gift under Mohammedan Law. First, a clear manifestation of the wish to give on the part of the donor. Second, an acceptance of the gift by the donee, which can be either implied or explicit. Third, taking of possession of the subject-matter of the gift by the donee, either actually or constructively - A gift under Mohammedan Law does not require a written document to be valid. An oral gift that fulfils the three essential requisites is complete and irrevocable. The mere fact that a gift is reduced to writing does not change its nature or character. A written document recording the gift does not become a formal instrument of gift- The distinction that a written deed of gift is not required to be registered if it “recites the factum of a prior gift” but must be registered if the “writing is contemporaneous with the making of the gift” is considered “inappropriate and is not in conformity with the rule of gifts in Mohammadan Law”- Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act,- excludes the rule of Mohammedan Law from the purview of Section 123, which requires registration for the gift of immovable property- Delivery of possession is a critical and necessary element for a valid gift. It can be actual or constructive. Constructive possession can be demonstrated by overt acts by the donor that show a clear intention to transfer control. For example, the donor applies for the mutation of the donee’s name in the revenue records -Continuous evidence of acting under the oral gift is crucial to prove the delivery of possession. The donee must be able to demonstrate “exclusive control” over the property to derive benefit under it, such as by collecting rent, or by the donor performing acts like mutation on behalf of the donee. Conversely, the donor’s continued collection of rent and the donee’s lack of control over title documents or mutation records can be evidence that possession was not transferred. (Para 36)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 50 -The opinion expressed by the conduct of a person with special knowledge relevant- For the applicability of the section, there are three essentials. i. Firstly, the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another. ii. Secondly, the opinion on this relationship must be expressed through conduct. iii. Thirdly, the person whose conduct expresses the opinion must have special means of knowledge on the subject, such as being a member of the family or otherwise - The term “opinion” is defined not as a casual statement or gossip but as a “judgment or belief” or a “conviction.” This belief is demonstrated and proved through the person’s conduct or behavior. The conduct must be of a tenor that can only be explained by the existence of that inner belief about the relationship- The conduct is not the ultimate proof of relationship but an intermediate step. It allows the court to infer the “opinion” of the person whose conduct is in evidence. The court then weighs this opinion to arrive at its own conclusion regarding the relationship in issue. Hence, Section 50 does not make evidence of mere general reputation (without accompanying conduct) admissible as proof of a relationship. Further, if the conduct is of such a tenor, the Court only gets to a relevant piece of evidence, namely, the opinion of a person. It still remains for the Court to weigh such evidence and come to its own opinion as to the factum probandum, as to the relationship in question. In conforming to the above, the conduct, being a perceptible external fact, must be proved by “direct evidence” as defined in Section 60 of the Evidence Act. (Para 26) The proof of status or relationship need not always necessarily be through documentary evidence, but, when oral evidence is the basis on which the opinion is required to be formed by a Court, the Courts are allowed to treat an opinion on conduct about a relationship as only a relevant fact. This should not be confused with ‘as factum probandum’. (Para 33)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 73 - Comparison with Admitted or Proven Documents - The primary function of Section 73 is to allow the court to compare a disputed signature or handwriting with a standard document that is either admitted by the parties or has been proven to the satisfaction of the court to be genuine- A court should not assume the role of a handwriting expert- While the court can compare a disputed signature with an admitted one under Section 73, it would be hazardous to rely solely on this comparison without the assistance of an expert- The court's own comparison can be used as corroborative evidence to support the testimony of an expert witness, or vice versa- Comparison by the Court in a Prudent Measure: The power to compare documents, and the available power, should be exercised as a measure of last resort, and the court’s conclusion should not be the sole basis for a decision in serious matters (Para 30)

Transfer of Property Act - Section 3- Constructive notice - Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, if the inquiry that a reasonable person would conduct in the specific circumstances is not made, then Courts, through constructive notice, may impute knowledge on such persons. Thus, constructive notice in equity treats a man who ought to have known a fact as if he actually knows it. (Para 45)

Registration Act -There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. (Para 47)

Constitution of India - Article 136 - In a given case, the reappreciation of evidence is not barred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 14)

For Valid Oral Gift (Hiba) Under Mohammedan Law, Public Possession Must Be Proved; Absence Of Mutation Raises Doubt: Supreme Court

Hiba cannot operate in secrecy as a surprise instrument, the Court said.

Live LawYash Mittal