Supreme Court of India

SRI RAM NIWAS TOD! AND ANR.versusBIBI JABRUNNISSA AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 831
Decided: 6 August 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: M M PUNCHHIK VENKATASWAMI

Holding

An oral gift of house‑property made by a Muslim father‑in‑law, followed by delivery of possession, is valid and effective despite the absence of a registered deed, and tenancy statutes cannot defeat this personal‑law rule.

Summary

The appellants challenged the validity of a gift of a house and its appurtenant land made by the father‑in‑law to the respondent, who was already in possession of the property. The gift was evidenced by an oral declaration and a written deed that had not been registered. The trial court and the High Court held that the oral gift, followed by possession, completed the transfer under Muslim personal law, despite the lack of registration required by the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 and the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixing of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. The High Court further concluded that the tenancy statutes could not override the personal law rule that an oral gift is effective when possession is delivered. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, stating that the oral gift was valid and that the discussion on tenancy laws was unnecessary. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether an oral gift of immovable property by a Muslim father‑in‑law to his daughter‑in‑law is valid under Muslim personal law.
Whether the lack of registration of the gift deed under the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 and the Bihar Land Reforms Act renders the gift invalid.
Whether possession of the property after the oral declaration completes the transfer of title.
Whether the provisions of the tenancy and land‑reform statutes can override the rules of Muslim personal law regarding gifts.

Subjects

oral giftMuslim personal lawpossessionregistration of deedhouse propertyland appurtenanttenancy lawland reformscivil appeal

Judgment

A                      SRI RAM NIWAS TOD! AND ANR.
                                    v.
                        BIBI JABRUNNISSA AND ORS.

                                  AUGUST 6, 1996

B              [M.M. PUNCHHI, AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

            Mohammedan Law:

           Gift-Oral gift-Plai11tiff-respo11de11t in possession of house property
    alo11gwith land appwte11ant theretO-Oral gift of the property by father-in-law
c   of plai11tiff-Respondent i11 her [avow-There was also a written but not
    registered gift deed-Held, it could 1101 be said that in presence of written gift
    there was 110 oral gift-ft was followed by possession making the gift, complete
    as was rightly held by the three coiuts below-High Court was right in
    upholding the gift.
D
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2276 of
    1987.

         From the Judgment and Or<lcr dated 24.9.86 of the Patna High Court
    in Appeal from Decree Nos. 596 & 597 of 1979.
E
            H.K. Puri for the Appellants.

            Mohd. Kazim Sher for P.S. Jha, for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F          Before the Trial Court it was admitted that the suit land measuring
    41.5 decimals was homestead land and several houses of phoos (thatch)
    and tiles were constructtd thereon, which were in occupation of the
    plaintiff-respondent since long, even prior to the gift Ex. 1 executed in her
    favour by her father-in- law. Since the parties were Mohamedans, an oral
G   gift by a father- in-law to his daughter-in-law was permissible but here was
    one which was written but not registered. It could not, in any event, be said
    that in presence thereof there was no oral gift. Significantly, it was followed
    by possession making the gift complete and that is the finding of all the
    three courts below.

H           The debate before the High Court centered round the erroneous
                                      314
                    R.N. TOD!. v. BIBIJABRUNNISSA ·                   315

premise that the gifted rroperty was agricultural land to which the A
provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 as also the Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixing of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act got attracted ..
Even so, taking into account those provisions, the High Court came to the
conclusion that the oral gift made by a Mohamedan would prevail over the
provisions in the tenancy laws, which required occupancy rights to be B
transferred by means of a registered deed. We think that it was unnecessary
for the High Court entering into such controversy and putting the tenancy
laws at a disadvantage over Muslim personal law. Once it stood established
that the property in dispute was house-property, which included open
spaces of land appurtenant and subservient thereto, to which the plaintiff-
rcspondcnt was put in possession after an oral gift in her favour, that per C
se should have been enough to keep her suit decreed rejecting the pleas
of the defendants-appellants that the gift as invalid, making the natural
heirs of the deceased owner claim it by inheritance.

      In this view of the matter we affirm the orders of the High Court to
lhe extent to which we agree as to the validity of the gift on its own,      D
denuding its judgment of the discussion on the tenancy laws. The appeal
is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "oral gift"Sign in to search