The Supreme Court of India in Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi & Ors. v. Syeda Arifa Parveen addressed critical questions concerning proof of relationship under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, the validity of an oral gift (Hiba) under Mohammedan law, and the bar of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court set aside concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Karnataka High Court, observing serious procedural and evidentiary lapses in accepting the plaintiff’s claim of ownership based on an unproven oral gift and a belated assertion of heirship.
Factual Background
A. The Origin of the Dispute
The case revolved around agricultural land in Survey No. 107, measuring 24 acres and 28 guntas, situated in Village Kusnoor, Taluka and District Gulbarga, Karnataka. The land originally belonged to Khadijabee, who had obtained ownership through a decree dated 27 October 1987 in O.S. No. 68 of 1971. The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed to be Khadijabee’s only daughter.
She asserted that on 5 December 1988, her mother, Khadijabee, made an oral gift (Hiba) of 10 acres from the suit property in her favour, which was allegedly followed by a Memorandum of Gift dated 5 January 1989 (Ex. P-8). After Khadijabee’s death on 29 November 1990, her husband Abdul Basit allegedly continued to manage the property. The plaintiff contended that her father died on 9 September 2001, leaving her as the sole heir.
However, in 1995, Abdul Basit (referred to in documents as Abdul Bas) sold the entire 24 acres and 28 guntas through five registered sale deeds (Exs. D-3 to D-7) to the defendants. Based on these deeds, the defendants’ names were duly mutated in the Record of Rights (ROR).
B. The Plaintiff’s Case
The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 212 of 2013 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, seeking:
- A declaration of ownership over the entire land in Survey No. 107,
- A declaration that the sale deeds executed in 1995 were null and void, and
- A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession.
She asserted that:
- She had accepted the oral gift and taken possession in 1988;
- The sale deeds were fabricated by an imposter, “Abdul Bas,” not her father;
- The mutation entries were illegal and made without notice to her;
- The defendants attempted to dispossess her on 14 October 2013, creating cause of action.
C. The Defendants’ Stand
The defendants admitted that Khadijabee was the original owner, but contended that:
- She and her husband died childless.
- The plaintiff was not their daughter and fabricated the claim decades later.
- The alleged oral gift and memorandum were forged and unacted upon.
- They were bona fide purchasers for value from Abdul Basit (whose name was lawfully recorded in the ROR);
- They had peaceful possession since 1995, paid taxes, and obtained crop loans.
- They also argued that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation, as the sale deeds were executed and recorded nearly 18 years before the suit was filed.
Procedural History
Trial Court (2019): Decreed the suit partly.
- Held that the plaintiff was the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit (based on Section 50, Evidence Act).
- Disbelieved the oral gift (Hiba) for lack of proof of possession.
- However, it granted ownership of 18 acres and 21 guntas (3/4th share) to the plaintiff as heir and held that only 1/4th (6 acres 7 guntas) could have been validly sold by Abdul Basit.
High Court (Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, 2022): Dismissed the appeal but modified the decree.
- Recognised the oral gift of 10 acres as validly proved.
- Held that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the gifted land plus 3/4th share in the remaining 14 acres 28 guntas, effectively granting her 24 acres 28 guntas.
Supreme Court (2025): Defendants appealed, contending that both courts misread evidence, ignored limitations, and overstepped jurisdiction by modifying the decree without a cross-appeal.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the findings of the courts below were perverse, warranting reappreciation of evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution.
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the finding on oral gift (Hiba) without a cross-appeal by the plaintiff.
- Whether the plaintiff proved her status as the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit.
- Whether the alleged oral gift (Hiba) was validly proved and acted upon.
- Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
1. Scope of Reappreciation of Evidence
The Court noted that ordinarily, it does not reappreciate evidence under Article 136. However, where findings are manifestly perverse, based on misreading or absence of evidence, or cause miscarriage of justice, it may intervene. Relying on Mahesh Dattaray Thirthakar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141, it reaffirmed that reappraisal is permissible when inferential errors or misapplication of legal presumptions are apparent.
Since both lower courts had erroneously applied Section 50 and Section 73 of the Evidence Act and overlooked the limitation, the Supreme Court undertook a full reassessment.
2. Jurisdictional Error of the High Court
The Court observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction to enhance the plaintiff’s relief in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection. Referring to Banarsi v. Ram Phal (2003) 9 SCC 606, it reiterated that an appeal lies against a decree, not a mere finding. Hence, without a cross-appeal, the High Court could not have converted a partial decree into an absolute declaration of ownership.
The High Court’s recognition of a valid oral gift—reversing the trial court—was therefore illegal and beyond appellate jurisdiction.
3. Proof of Relationship under Section 50 Evidence Act
The plaintiff’s claim of being the sole daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit was disputed. The Court explained that Section 50 allows opinion evidence expressed through the conduct of persons with “special means of knowledge,” but such evidence must satisfy three tests:
- The court must be called upon to form an opinion on a relationship.
- The opinion must be expressed by conduct (not hearsay).
- The person must have special means of knowledge (e.g., family member).
Citing Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra (AIR 1959 SC 914), it held that conduct-based evidence is intermediate, not conclusive; the Court must still test credibility and consistency.
The trial court relied solely on two witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) who were close relatives and “interested witnesses”. They gave inconsistent accounts, admitted seeing documents like ration cards and school certificates but never produced them. No birth certificate, school record, or official proof of lineage was filed, despite the plaintiff being educated.
The trial court compounded this error by comparing disputed signatures under Section 73 Evidence Act, even though neither party admitted the signatures used for comparison—a clear misuse of discretion. The Court cited Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. (1966) SC, cautioning that a judge should not act as a handwriting expert without corroboration.
Hence, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove her parentage, and the concurrent findings on this aspect were perverse and unsupported by credible evidence.
4. Validity of Oral Gift (Hiba)
The Court elaborated the essentials of a valid Hiba under Mohammedan Law:
- Declaration of gift by donor,
- Acceptance by donee, and
- Delivery of possession, actual or constructive.
Referring to Abdul Rahim v. Sk. Abdul Zabar (2009) 6 SCC 160, Hafeeza Bibi v. Sk. Farid (2011) 5 SCC 654, and Rasheeda Khatoon v. Ashiq Ali (2014) 10 SCC 459, the Court clarified that delivery of possession is the most critical element; without it, a gift remains inchoate and void.
Application to the Case
- The plaintiff claimed possession since 1988, but no mutation, tax payment, or cultivation records showed her control.
- The mutation in 1989 (Ex. P-2) was made in favour of Khadijabee for the entire 24 acres, not 10 acres.
- After her death, Abdul Basit mutated his name in 1991 and sold the land in 1995.
- The plaintiff never objected or sought mutation for over 23 years.
The Court observed that a genuine gift under Hiba would manifest through visible acts like mutation, possession, or revenue entries. The Memorandum of Gift (Ex. P-8), far from corroborating possession, contained contradictions—it bore a thumb impression though the donor habitually signed in Urdu, and included a clause allowing future possession, negating her claim of prior delivery.
Citing Mussamut Kamarunnissa Bibi v. Mussamut Husaini Bibi (1880 UKPC 36), the Court held that oral gifts set up after the donor’s death demand strict proof and contemporaneous conduct, which were absent here.
Thus, the alleged oral gift and memorandum were invalid, unacted upon, and unenforceable.
5. Bar of Limitation
The plaintiff sought declaratory and cancellation relief in 2013 regarding transactions of 1995. The Supreme Court applied Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act:
Article 58: 3 years from when the right to sue first accrues (for declaration).
Article 59: 3 years from when the plaintiff first had notice of the instrument (for cancellation).
Key milestones:
1988–1989: Alleged oral gift and memorandum.
1990: Death of Khadijabee.
1991: Mutation in Abdul Basit’s name.
1995: Registered sale deeds executed.
2013: Suit filed after 18 years.
The Court held that constructive notice must be imputed—since the sale deeds were registered, publicly recorded, and acted upon, the plaintiff was deemed to have known. Her failure to act amounted to gross negligence, not mere delay. Citing Noorul Hoda v. Bibi Raifunnisa (1996) 7 SCC 767 and Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006 AIR SC 3608), the Court reaffirmed that registered documents carry a presumption of validity, and belated challenges are barred by time.
Hence, the suit was clearly time-barred, and the High Court erred in ignoring constructive notice and long inaction.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 50 Evidence Act
Oral testimony of relatives, without corroborative documents or credible conduct, cannot establish a familial relationship. Courts must test the credibility, relevance, and competence of witnesses; mere repetition of opinion is insufficient.
Section 73 Evidence Act
A court may compare handwriting only with admitted or proven signatures. Using disputed documents for mutual comparison is impermissible.
Mohammedan Law of Hiba
A valid oral gift requires clear declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Without mutation, possession, or continuous control, a Hiba is void.
Appellate Jurisdiction
A decree cannot be enhanced without a cross-appeal or cross-objection. The High Court’s modification granting additional relief was without jurisdiction.
Limitation
Declaratory and cancellation suits must be filed within three years from the accrual of the right to sue or knowledge of the impugned instrument. Constructive notice operates against parties who negligently fail to act.
Decision
- The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court.
- It held that the plaintiff failed to prove her status, the validity of oral gift, or possession.
- The suit (O.S. No. 212/2013) was declared barred by limitation.
- Consequently, the civil appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Observations of the Court
The Bench criticised both lower courts for their casual acceptance of oral evidence and unverified assumptions. It emphasised that judicial findings must rest on objective evidence, not presumptions or sentimental reasoning, particularly in inheritance and property disputes arising decades after the alleged cause.
Justice Bhatti observed:
“The impugned judgments presume possession in favour of the plaintiff on ipse dixit statements… The courts below fell in grave error in not appreciating the long lapse of years and continued silence of the plaintiff vis-à-vis the suit property.”
Significance of the Judgment
- Clarifies the evidentiary threshold for familial status under Section 50 Evidence Act, essential in succession disputes.
- Reiterates rigour in proving oral gifts (Hiba)—ensuring transactions are not fabricated posthumously.
- Strengthens the doctrine of constructive notice and limits stale litigation under the Limitation Act.
- Reasserts appellate discipline, prohibiting courts from granting relief not sought by cross-appeal.
- Establishes that concurrent findings can be overturned where lower courts misapply evidentiary principles or disregard material facts.
Conclusion
In Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi & Ors. v. Syeda Arifa Parveen, the Supreme Court restored legal precision to the intersection of personal law, evidence, and limitation. The judgment underscores that oral claims of inheritance or gift must be backed by objective proof—such as possession, mutation, or public acts—and that judicial sympathy cannot substitute legal proof.
By dismissing the plaintiff’s long-delayed, unsubstantiated claim, the Court reaffirmed that law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams