State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case

"Donee's Silence Speaks Volumes": Kerala High Court Remands Partition Case Over Unproven Gift Deeds

17 September 2024 3:33 PM

By: sayum


The Kerala High Court has set aside the trial court’s dismissal of a suit for partition, remanding the case for a fresh evaluation of the evidence regarding the validity of two gift deeds executed under Mohammedan law. The court stressed that the essentials of a valid gift—declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—must be thoroughly examined, particularly when the donee, who is crucial to establishing these elements, did not testify.

The case involves a dispute over the partition of properties left by late T.K. Abdulla, who passed away in 2011. The appellant, Naseer T.K., Abdulla’s son, sought a partition of the family’s immovable and movable properties. However, the suit was challenged by his mother, the first defendant, and his sister, the second defendant, who relied on two gift deeds executed by Abdulla in favor of the second defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit, upholding the gift deeds and finding no merit in the claim for partition.

The Kerala High Court scrutinized the trial court's findings, emphasizing that under Mohammedan law, a gift is valid only if it fulfills three essential conditions: declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The court noted that these elements were not sufficiently proven by the defendants. In particular, the donee’s failure to testify raised significant doubts about whether these essentials were met. The court remarked, “The donee would be the best person to speak about acceptance of the gift and delivery of possession. Her abstention from the witness box is significant.”

The court further observed that despite claims that the properties had been mutated in the name of the donee and that rent was being collected from a leased building, no documentary evidence such as tax receipts or lease agreements was provided to support these assertions. The court found this lack of evidence troubling, especially in light of records showing that the property continued to be assessed in Abdulla’s name even after the purported gift.

In its legal reasoning, the court reiterated that mere recitals in the gift deeds regarding the transfer of possession are not conclusive. The court referred to the precedent set in Maqbool Alam Khan v. Mst Khodaija (1966 AIR SC 1194), underscoring that all three pillars of a valid gift under Mohammedan law must be proved with clear evidence. The court stated, “The evidence on record cannot lead to a finding that there is a complete gift under the two deeds.”

The Kerala High Court’s decision to remand the case highlights the importance of adhering to the strict requirements of Mohammedan law in cases involving gift deeds. By calling for a fresh trial and allowing both parties to present further evidence, the court has ensured that justice is pursued with thoroughness and fairness. The outcome of the retrial may have significant implications for the application of Mohammedan law in future property disputes.

Date of Decision: September 3, 2024

Sinu & Ors Vs State of Kerala

Latest Legal News