Supreme Court sets aside High Court decree in oral gift dispute, holds plaintiff’s suit barred by limitation

Case Name: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen
Date of Judgment: October 07, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1187, Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 16996 of 2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants, set aside the judgments of the Karnataka High Court and the trial court, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court held that the alleged oral gift (hiba) of 10 acres and the supporting memorandum of gift deed were not proved in law, as possession was never established. It further ruled that the suit filed in 2013 to challenge sale deeds of 1995 was clearly barred by limitation.

Summary: The dispute concerned agricultural land measuring 24 acres and 28 guntas at village Kusnoor, Gulbarga. The plaintiff, claiming to be the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit, asserted ownership based on an oral gift of 10 acres allegedly made by her mother in 1988, as well as inheritance of the remaining property after her parents’ deaths. She sought declaration of title and invalidation of five sale deeds executed in 1995 by Abdul Basit in favour of the defendants. The trial court partly decreed her suit, recognising her 3/4th share as heir but disbelieving the oral gift. The High Court modified the decree, upholding the oral gift of 10 acres and granting her a larger share.

Before the Supreme Court, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s status as daughter was not conclusively established, that the oral gift was fabricated, and that the suit was barred by limitation since it was filed 18 years after the registered sale deeds. The plaintiff defended the concurrent findings, contending that oral evidence under Section 50 of the Evidence Act proved her relationship and possession.

The Court analysed the evidentiary value of Section 50 Evidence Act, the requirements of a valid hiba under Mohammedan Law, and the doctrine of constructive notice under the Limitation Act. It held that oral testimony of relatives without contemporaneous documentary proof was insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s status or possession. It also held that the long silence and failure to mutate records demonstrated negligence, attracting constructive notice of the 1995 sale deeds.

Decision: The Supreme Court concluded that the oral gift and memorandum of gift were invalid for want of proof of possession, that the plaintiff failed to establish her status as daughter through credible evidence, and that the suit filed in 2013 was barred by limitation. It therefore set aside the judgments of the High Court and trial court, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, and allowed the appeal filed by the defendants, with no order as to costs.