The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on property law, has held that a suit for declaration of title filed after decades of inaction is barred by limitation, applying the doctrine of constructive notice. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti set aside the judgments of the Karnataka High Court and a trial court, dismissing a suit filed by a woman claiming ownership of 24 acres of land based on an alleged oral gift (Hiba) and inheritance.
The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s failure to assert her rights for over 23 years, despite multiple public transactions concerning the property, meant she was deemed to have constructive knowledge of adverse claims, thereby extinguishing her right to sue.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned agricultural land measuring 24 acres and 28 guntas in Kusnoor village, Gulbarga. The property originally belonged to Khadijabee, who was declared its owner by a court decree in 1987.
The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed that on December 5, 1988, her mother Khadijabee made an oral gift of 10 acres of this land to her, which was later recorded in a Memorandum of Gift on January 5, 1989. Khadijabee passed away on November 29, 1990, and her husband, Abdul Basit, died on September 9, 2001. The plaintiff asserted that as the sole heir and recipient of the gift, she was the absolute owner of the entire property.
However, after Khadijabee’s death, her husband Abdul Basit had his name mutated in the revenue records for the entire 24 acres in 1991. Subsequently, on February 25, 1995, he sold the entire property to the defendants (appellants in the Supreme Court) through five registered sale deeds. The defendants’ names were duly entered in the Record of Rights (ROR).
On October 28, 2013, nearly 18 years after the sale and 23 years after her mother’s death, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of her ownership and cancellation of the 1995 sale deeds, alleging they were fraudulent.
The Trial Court partially decreed the suit, disbelieving the oral gift but accepting the plaintiff’s claim of being Khadijabee’s daughter. It held she was entitled to a 3/4th share as per Mohammedan law of succession. The defendants appealed to the High Court of Karnataka, which not only dismissed their appeal but modified the decree in the plaintiff’s favour. The High Court reversed the trial court’s finding and accepted the oral gift, granting the plaintiff ownership of the 10 gifted acres plus a 3/4th share in the remaining property. Aggrieved, the defendants approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellants (defendants) argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove her lineage as Khadijabee’s daughter with any primary documentary evidence. They contended that the suit was severely barred by limitation, having been filed 18 years after the registered sale deeds. They also submitted that the High Court had erred in granting relief on the oral gift when the plaintiff herself had not filed a cross-appeal against the trial court’s rejection of that claim.
The respondent (plaintiff) countered that the lower courts had recorded concurrent findings on her status as the daughter, which should not be interfered with. She maintained that the oral gift was valid and her suit was within the limitation period as the cause of action arose only on October 14, 2013, when the defendants allegedly tried to dispossess her.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence, stating it was necessary where lower courts had “acted perversely or otherwise improperly.”
On Reversal Without Cross-Appeal: The Court first held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. It noted, “in the absence of cross appeal preferred or cross objection taken by the plaintiff-respondent the First Appellate Court did not have jurisdiction to modify the decree in the manner in which it has done.”
On Proof of Lineage and Oral Gift: The bench found the plaintiff’s evidence on her relationship with Khadijabee to be insufficient and based on “circular reasoning.” Regarding the oral gift (Hiba), the Court reiterated that delivery of possession is a critical element. It found no evidence that possession was ever transferred to the plaintiff. On the contrary, Khadijabee herself had her name mutated for the entire property in 1989, after the alleged gift. The Court stated, “The Hiba is not used as a surprise instrument and cannot sprout into a transfer of property as per the convenience of a party.” Finding no proof of possession, the claim of a valid oral gift was rejected.
On Limitation and Constructive Notice: The most decisive part of the judgment was the analysis of limitation. The Court held that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the three-year period begins “when the right to sue first accrues.” The bench identified multiple instances when the right to sue had first accrued, starting as early as 1989.
The Court held that the plaintiff’s “continued negligence would result in constructive notice of transactions” adverse to her claim. It invoked the doctrine of constructive notice, explaining that “constructive notice in equity treats a man who ought to have known a fact as if he actually knows it.” The judgment stated, “The conduct for over a period of 23 years cannot be appreciated as the conduct of a passive observer but amounts to failure to use the care that a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under these circumstances.”
The Court concluded that knowledge of the adverse claims must be imputed to the plaintiff due to her prolonged inaction. Therefore, the suit filed in 2013 was hopelessly barred by time.
The Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. The plaintiff’s suit, O.S. No. 212 of 2013, was dismissed.
