Introduction:

The Supreme Court, in Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By LRs. & Ors. (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023), reiterated that under Mohammedan Law, registration of gifts (Hiba) is not mandatory if the essential requisites of a valid gift are fulfilled. The bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, was hearing an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision, which upheld a trial court’s refusal to recognize ownership rights based on a partition made through an oral gift by Sultan Saheb. While the Court acknowledged that gifts under Mohammedan Law do 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 satisfied.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellants argued that Sultan Saheb had executed a valid oral gift, complying with the requirements under Mohammedan Law. They contended that the absence of a registered document did not invalidate the gift, as Mohammedan Law permits oral gifts if the three essential conditions—declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—are fulfilled. The appellants maintained that these conditions were met, thereby establishing the validity of the gift.

The respondents, however, refuted these claims, asserting that no clear and unequivocal declaration of the gift was made by Sultan Saheb. They argued that the purported gift was a pretext to claim ownership rights over the property, which was impermissible under the law. They further contended that partition of property during the lifetime of the owner could not be effectuated through an oral gift, as it contradicts the principles of Mohammedan Law. The respondents emphasized that the absence of a clear declaration rendered the alleged gift invalid.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision, reaffirming the principles governing gifts under Mohammedan Law. The Court emphasized that a valid gift does not require registration but must fulfill three essential conditions: declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession. It clarified that these conditions are sequential and indispensable—failure to comply with any one of them renders the gift invalid.

Analyzing the facts of the case, the Court noted that the appellants failed to establish a clear and unequivocal declaration of the gift by Sultan Saheb. While oral gifts are permissible under Mohammedan Law, the absence of a declaration undermined the validity of the purported gift. The Court further highlighted that the partition of property during the owner’s lifetime is not recognized under Mohammedan Law. Even if the alleged gift was oral, it could not substitute the legal requirements for partition.

The judgment also underscored the distinction between gifts and partitions, noting that while a gift transfers ownership immediately upon fulfillment of its conditions, a partition involves division of property rights, which cannot be effectuated through oral declarations. The Court ruled that the appellants failed to meet the requisite conditions for a valid gift, rendering their claims untenable.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the purported oral gift did not meet the legal requirements under Mohammedan Law. The judgment reaffirmed the principles that while registration is not mandatory, the essential conditions of a valid gift must be fulfilled for it to be legally enforceable.