In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that gifts (hiba) under Mohammedan law do not require registration to be valid, provided they fulfill specific legal requisites. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol in Civil Appeal No. 4211 of 2009 (Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) by LRs. & Ors.), clarified the position on oral and unregistered gifts, emphasizing their validity within the framework of Islamic law.
Case Background
The dispute arose over the inheritance of agricultural land and a house owned by Sultan Saheb, who passed away in 1978. Sultan Saheb had children from two marriages, including a daughter, Rabiyabi, from his second marriage. Upon his death, the defendants—his sons—claimed that Sultan Saheb had orally gifted portions of his property to them during his lifetime. The plaintiffs, the legal heirs of Rabiyabi, filed a partition suit in 1988, contending that they were entitled to a 1/6th share of the property and that the alleged oral gifts were invalid.
The defendants relied on Mutation Entry No. 8258, which recorded the division of property among the sons. They claimed this entry reflected an oral gift by Sultan Saheb. The plaintiffs argued that the mutation entry only referred to a “partition” and not a gift, and that under Mohammedan law, partition during the lifetime of the owner was impermissible.
The trial court and the Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, dismissing the defendants’ claims. The matter was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
1. Validity of Oral Gifts Under Mohammedan Law
The Court had to determine whether the oral gift (hiba) allegedly made by Sultan Saheb to his sons satisfied the legal criteria. Mohammedan law recognizes oral gifts, but these must meet strict conditions to be valid.
2. Requirement of Registration for Gifts Under Mohammedan Law
The appellants contended that Mohammedan law does not require gifts to be registered. They argued that the oral declaration, acceptance by the donees, and delivery of possession were sufficient for the validity of the gift.
3. Interpretation of Mutation Entries
The Court had to interpret whether the mutation entry, which referred to a “partition,” could be considered evidence of an oral gift. The plaintiffs argued that the nomenclature clearly indicated a partition, not a gift, and that the requirements of a valid gift were not fulfilled.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court examined the principles governing gifts under Mohammedan law and provided detailed guidance on the following issues:
1. Validity of Oral Gifts
The Court reaffirmed that oral gifts are permissible under Mohammedan law and do not require documentation or registration. However, for a gift to be valid, three essential conditions must be fulfilled:
– Declaration of the Gift by the Donor: The donor must clearly express their intention to make the gift.
– Acceptance by the Donee: The donee must explicitly or implicitly accept the gift.
– Delivery of Possession: The donor must transfer possession of the gifted property to the donee, either physically or constructively.
The Court noted that these conditions must be sequentially satisfied and emphasized that an unregistered gift is valid only if all three elements are proven.
2. Registration and Documentation
The Court clarified that Mohammedan law does not mandate registration for a valid gift. The ruling cited precedents such as Hafeeza Bibi v. Sk. Farid (2011) and Jamila Begum v. Shami Mohd. (2019) to reinforce that the absence of a written or registered deed does not invalidate a gift if the three conditions are met.
3. Interpretation of Mutation Entries
The Court examined Mutation Entry No. 8258, which the defendants claimed evidenced the oral gift. The entry referred to a “partition,” and the Court observed that the language used was unequivocal. It held that mutation entries are limited to revenue records and do not confer or extinguish property rights. The Court emphasized that the nomenclature “partition” could not be construed as “gift” without clear evidence of intent.
4. Evidence of Gift
The Court scrutinized the testimony of the defense witnesses and found it vague and unconvincing. It noted that the testimonies failed to establish a clear declaration of intent by Sultan Saheb to gift the property. Furthermore, there was no evidence of possession being delivered to the donees.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the trial court and High Court’s findings that the alleged oral gift was invalid. It held that:
The requirements for a valid gift under Mohammedan law were not fulfilled.
The mutation entry reflected a partition, not a gift, and did not establish ownership rights for the defendants.
While reaffirming the validity of oral and unregistered gifts under Mohammedan law, the Court underscored the importance of meeting all legal requisites for such gifts.
