New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently set aside concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and a trial court that had granted a woman ownership over 24 acres of land, which she claimed was orally gifted (Hiba) to her by her late mother.

A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that the woman’s claim was not only unproven but also hopelessly barred by limitation, as she had remained silent for over two decades. The Court restored ownership to five individuals who had purchased the land in 1995.

The judgment provides a critical clarification on the essential ingredients of a valid oral gift under Mohammedan Law, particularly the non-negotiable requirement of "delivery of possession."

The Factual Matrix: A 25-Year Dispute

The dispute centered around 24 acres and 28 guntas of agricultural land in Kusnoor village, Gulbarga, originally owned by Khadijabee, who acquired it in a 1987 partition decree.

The respondent, Syeda Arifa Parveen, filed a suit in 2013 with the following claims:

She was the only daughter of Khadijabee.
In December 1988, her mother Khadijabee orally gifted (Hiba) her 10 acres of the land and executed a memorandum of gift in January 1989.
After Khadijabee’s death in 1990, her father, Abdul Basit, wrongfully took over the entire property.
In 1995, Abdul Basit sold the entire 24-acre property to the appellants (five purchasers) through five registered sale deeds.
Parveen sought a declaration of her ownership and the cancellation of these 1995 sale deeds.

The Lower Courts' Findings

Trial Court: The trial court partly accepted Parveen’s claim. It did not believe the oral Hiba theory. However, it held that Parveen had established she was the daughter of Khadijabee and was thus entitled to a ¾ share in the land by inheritance.

Karnataka High Court: The purchasers appealed this decision. The High Court, in its 2022 order, went a step further than the trial court. It validated the alleged Hiba, declaring Parveen the absolute owner of the entire 24 acres (10 acres via Hiba and the rest via inheritance).

Crucially, the High Court did this even though Parveen had not filed any cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s rejection of her Hiba claim.

The Supreme Court's Reversal: Three Key Findings

The Supreme Court allowed the purchasers' appeal and dismissed Parveen’s suit in its entirety, finding the conclusions of the lower courts to be "perverse and unsupported by evidence."

1. The Claim of Hiba was Legally Unsustainable

The bench reaffirmed the settled principles of Mohammedan Law: a Hiba is valid even if oral, but it must satisfy three essential conditions:

A clear declaration of gift by the donor.
An acceptance of the gift by the donee.
A delivery of possession (actual or constructive) of the property.

The Supreme Court held that Parveen's claim failed on the third and most critical test. Justice Bhatti, writing for the bench, noted, "Delivery of possession is the cornerstone of a valid hiba."

The Court found "no evidence of either actual or constructive delivery." In fact, the evidence pointed to the contrary:

Revenue records were never mutated in Parveen’s name.
The donor (Khadijabee) and her husband (Abdul Basit) continued to be listed as the owners.
The donee (Parveen) could not show any continuous and exclusive control over the property, such as collecting rent or managing the land.

The bench clarified that while Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act saves Muslim gift laws from the registration requirements of Section 123, it does not exempt a gift from its own essential conditions.

2. The Suit was Fatally Barred by Limitation

The Supreme Court found the 2013 suit to be hopelessly time-barred. The sale deeds Parveen sought to cancel were registered in 1995. She filed her suit 18 years later.

The Court observed that Parveen had remained silent for over two decades while the property was first mutated in her father’s name and then subsequently transferred to the appellants through registered deeds.

"Constructive notice must be imputed to the plaintiff," the judgment declared. The bench stressed that a reasonably prudent person would have acted to protect their ownership rights much earlier. Her long silence and inaction were fatal to her claim. The cause of action, the Court found, accrued decades ago, not in 2013.

3. High Court "Acted Beyond Jurisdiction"

The Supreme Court also came down on the High Court for procedural overreach. It noted that the High Court had modified the trial court’s decree to validate the Hiba, even though Parveen (the plaintiff) had never filed a cross-appeal asking for it.

Citing the 2003 precedent in Banarsi v. Ram Phal, the bench held that the High Court "acted beyond jurisdiction" by granting a relief that was never sought in an appeal.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that both lower courts had relied on weak oral testimony from relatives to establish Parveen's lineage as Khadijabee's daughter, without any supporting documentary evidence like birth, school, or ration records.

Concluding that the claims were unproven and time-barred, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed Parveen's suit, restoring ownership to the 1995 purchasers.

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

Citation: 2025 INSC 1187 (arising from SLP (C) No. 16996 of 2022)

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

JUDGEMENT COPY : https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/29159/29159_2022_13_1501_64832_Judgement_07-Oct-2025.pdf