Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Collector’s Appointment of Ex-Serviceman as Lambardar: Preference for Service to the State Valid Tax to Be Computed at 100% Under DTVSV Act, Rejects Inclusion of Belated Grounds in Disputed Tax: Bombay High Court Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of LPG Distributor LOI for Violating Guidelines Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court Illegality Is Incurable, Unauthorized Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective UGC Benefits to Librarians Without Required Qualifications Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Evidence Can Be Admitted Beyond Pleadings, And Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed Merely To Fill Lacunae: Jharkhand High Court Quashing | Mere Heated Exchanges Over Loan Repayment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Prisoner Transfers Must Prioritize Security and Prevent Gang Violence: Supreme Court Restores Intra-State Transfer Order Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC Is Conditional Upon Framing Substantial Questions of Law: Supreme Court Panchayat Election | Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Bar on Judicial Review During Election Process Encroachment Allegation Requires Concrete Evidence, Not Mere Surmises: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea for Disqualification of Sarpanch Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court

Absence of Donee's Testimony Proves Crucial in Kerala High Court's Remand of Partition Suit

05 September 2024 1:37 PM

By: sayum


The Kerala High Court has set aside the judgment of a lower court in a partition suit, highlighting the insufficient evidence presented to prove the validity of gift deeds under Mohammedan law. The court, comprising Justices Sathish Ninan and Johnson John, remanded the case for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present additional evidence.

The case concerns a suit for partition filed by Naseer T.K., seeking division of properties and assets left by his late father, Abdulla. The respondents, including Naseer’s sister, Beebi, contested the suit by relying on two gift deeds allegedly executed by Abdulla, transferring significant portions of the disputed properties to Beebi. The trial court upheld these gift deeds, leading Naseer to appeal the decision.

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the gift deeds (Exts.B1 and B2) executed by Abdulla satisfied the three essential elements of a valid gift under Mohammedan law: declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The court observed that, according to the landmark judgment in Maqbool Alam Khan v. Mst Khodaija and Ors., these three elements are indispensable for a gift to be valid under Mohammedan law.

The court found that the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the gift deeds met these requirements. Notably, the donee, Beebi, was not examined in court, which the judges noted as a significant omission, since she would be the most competent witness to confirm acceptance and possession. Additionally, the defendants could not produce tax receipts or other documents proving that the property had been mutated in Beebi's name or that she had taken possession, as claimed.

The court was particularly critical of the trial court's reliance on the mere recital in the gift deeds that possession had been handed over. The judges underscored that such a recital, while important, is not conclusive evidence of a valid gift. They also dismissed the argument that Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which restricts the use of oral evidence to contradict written documents, would bar Naseer from challenging the recitals in the gift deeds, as he was not a party to those documents.

Given the lack of concrete evidence, the court concluded that the trial court’s judgment could not be sustained. The case was remanded back for fresh disposal, allowing both parties to present further evidence, particularly concerning the execution and acceptance of the gift deeds.

This decision underscores the strict requirements under Mohammedan law for proving the validity of gift deeds, particularly in partition suits. The Kerala High Court’s judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in establishing the essential elements of a gift, and the case’s remand for further proceedings may set a precedent in similar disputes. The trial court will revisit the case on September 26, 2024, providing both sides an opportunity to present additional evidence.

Date of Decision: September 3, 2024

Naseer T.K. v. Mariyamma & Others

Similar News