DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS VERSUS SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN, 2025

The Respondent-plaintiff claimed ownership rights over 10 acres of land, asserting it was gifted to her by her mother through an oral gift (hiba) in 1988.

There was no mutation in the revenue records in the respondent’s name to substantiate possession or ownership of the land.

The Karnataka High Court accepted the respondent’s claim despite the absence of mutation or other documentary evidence, relying mainly on oral testimony.

The appellants challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court, arguing that without mutation or other acts showing possession, the oral gift claim is invalid.

The Supreme Court ruled that a valid oral gift (hiba) must satisfy three essential conditions simultaneously:

• Declaration by the donor: A clear and unequivocal intention to gift the property.

• Acceptance by the donee: Explicit or implied acceptance of the gift.

• Possession: The donee must take either actual or constructive possession of the gifted property.

The Court emphasized that these conditions must be satisfied in public knowledge rather than in secrecy or by covert means.

The Court further clarified that possession must be supported by contemporaneous and continuous evidence, such as:

• Collecting rent from the property,

• Holding title or control over the property,

• Effecting mutation of land records in the donee’s name.

Lack of mutation in the revenue records combined with continued entries favoring the appellants and their predecessor demonstrated their continued possession, which the respondent failed to disprove.

The Court rejected the idea that an oral gift can be used as a “surprise instrument” to stake claims over property without fulfilling essential conditions or providing credible evidence.

The impugned judgments, which assumed possession based solely on oral statements without documentary or mutation evidence, were held to be erroneous.

The judgment highlights the critical role of possession and mutation as indispensable elements in validating an oral gift (hiba) under Mohammedan law.

The Court insists on public declaration, acceptance, and possession as simultaneous and mandatory prerequisites, strengthening the protection against fraudulent claims.

By requiring continuous evidence such as rent collection, holding of title, and mutation, the ruling discourages claims based solely on oral testimony and ipse dixit (unsupported assertions).

The decision reinforces reliance on documentary evidence and revenue records in property disputes, aligning with the principle that possession must be demonstrable and verifiable.

This ruling safeguards property rights by preventing abuse of oral gifts as hidden or secretive instruments to effect ownership transfer.

The Court’s insistence on public acts and mutation benefits all parties by ensuring transparency and certainty in property transactions under Muslim law.