Supreme Court: Hiba(Gift) registration not mandatory if essentials met.
Last Updated on December 22, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC
Introduction:
The Supreme Court stated that under Muhammadan law registration of gifts (Hiba) is not mandatory if the essentials of a valid gift are met. A bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol were hearing an appeal against a Karnataka High Court decision that upheld a trial court’s refusal to recognize property rights based on a partition made by oral gift from Sultan Saheb. While the court recognized that gifts under Mohammedan law did not require registration, it dismissed the appeal, holding that the conditions for a valid gift, including a clear and unequivocal declaration by the donor, were not met.
Arguments from both sides:
The appellants contended that Sultan Saheb had made a valid oral donation in accordance with the requirements of Muhammadan law. They argued that the absence of a registered document would not invalidate the gift because Muhammadan law permits oral gifts if three basic conditions are met – declaration, acceptance and transfer of ownership. The petitioners insisted that these conditions were met, thereby validating the gift.
However, the detractors refuted these claims and argued that no clear and unequivocal statement about the gift was made by Sultan Saheb. They argued that the alleged gift was a pretext to claim ownership of the property, which is impermissible in law. They further argued that the distribution of property during the lifetime of the owner could not be made by oral gift as it was against the principles of Muhammadan law. Opponents pointed out that the absence of a clear statement rendered the purported gift invalid.
Judgment of the court:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court and reaffirmed the principles governing gifts under Muhammadan law. The court emphasized that a valid gift does not require registration, but must meet three basic conditions: declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and transfer of possession. He clarified that these conditions are successive and indispensable – failure to comply with any of them renders the gift invalid.
Analyzing the facts of the case, the Court observed that the petitioners failed to prove a clear and unequivocal declaration of Sultan Saheb’s gift. While oral gifts are permissible under Mohammedan law, the absence of a declaration undermined the validity of the alleged gift. The Court further emphasized that the division of property during the lifetime of the owner is not recognized under Mohammedan law. Even if the alleged gift was oral, it could not substitute for the statutory requirements for distribution.
The judgment also highlighted the difference between gifts and distributions, noting that while a gift transfers ownership immediately upon fulfillment of its terms, distributions involve distributions of property rights that cannot be made by oral declarations. The court held that the petitioners had failed to meet the requisite conditions for a valid gift, rendering their claims untenable.
In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the alleged oral gift did not meet the legal requirements under Mohammedan law. The judgment reaffirmed the principles that even if registration is not mandatory, the basic conditions of a valid gift must be met in order to be legally enforceable.
Case law- Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By LRs. & Ors.2024 SC 1023
