SHRI. NISAR AHMED S/O MOHAMMED ABBAS SUNTI vs THE TAHASILDAR SIRSI

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026
R

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 104826 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SHRI NISAR AHMED S/O. MOHAMMED ABBAS SUNTI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. INDIRA NAGAR, HUBLI ROAD, SIRSI,
UTTARA KANNADA-581402.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE TAHASILDAR, SIRSI,
UTTARA KANNDA-581401.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NANDINI SOMAPUR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI ON THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 11.02.2026 BEARING NO. RRT/VI VA/E-54434/2025-26
PASSED BY RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A. B. ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO
MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS
(PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E) PURSUANT TO THE GIFT DEED DATED
06.03.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA











Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date:
2026.07.22
10:18:02
+0530
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026

HC-KAR


ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to
pass an order:

a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari on the
impugned endorsement dated 11.02.2026 bearing
No. RRT/Vi Va/E-54434/2025-26 passed by
respondent vide Annexure-A.

b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus,
directing the respondent to make the necessary
changes in the record of rights (produced at
Annexure-E) pursuant to the Gift Deed dated
06.03.2007 vide Annexure-B.

c. Any other Order as may be deemed
necessary.”




2. It is the case of the petitioner that an extent of 01-
05-5.5 acres out of a total area measuring 02-10-11 acres in
Survey No.9/1A in Bachagao village, Sirsi Taluk [subject
property] originally belonged to one Mohammed Haji Abdul.
That the subject property was gifted by the owners in favour of
the petitioner vide Gift Deed dated 06.03.2007 (Annexure-D to
the writ petition).

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026

HC-KAR



3. It is the further case of the petitioner that
Mohammedan Law being applicable to the parties, all the
requisites of the gift are forthcoming in the said Gift Deed
dated 06.03.2007. That the petitioner made an application for
entering of his name in the revenue records. The said request
was rejected vide the impugned endorsement bearing
No.RRT/ViVa/E-54434/2025-26 dated 11.02.2026 issued by the
respondent-Tahsildar. Being aggrieved, the present writ
petition is filed.

4. The impugned endorsement dated 11.02.2026
reads as under:
“»A§gÀºÀ

«µÀAiÀÄ: ²gÀ¹ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ²gÀ¹ ºÉÆç½ §ZÀUÁAªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA
9/*/1C £ÉÃzÀgÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è ¨sÀQë¸ÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ
zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ¤ªÀÄä Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12-02-2024
2. PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ²gÀ¹ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢/£ÀA/8201/23-24
¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-01-2025
3. PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15-01-2025
*
²gÀ¹ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ²gÀ¹ ºÉÆç½ §ZÀUÁAªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA
9/*/1C £ÉÃzÀgÀ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è ¨sÀQëøÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ
zÁR°¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀAvÉ F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ
Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛÃj.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026

HC-KAR


F PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀAvÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ
¤jÃPÀÌPÀgÀÄ ²gÀ¹ gÀªÀjAzÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G¯ÉèÃR (3)
gÀAvÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁV ¨sÀQëøÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ
¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ £ÉÆAzÀt PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁVgÀÄzÁV ªÀgÀ¢
¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÁgÀt ¨sÀQë¸ÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀPÀÄÌ
zÁR°¹PÉƼÀÀÄzÁVzÉ. JA§ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ¤ªÀÄä
CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”


5. It is forthcoming that pursuant to the application
made by the petitioner for entering his name in the revenue
records, consequent to the Gift Deed dated 06.03.2007, the
respondent refused to enter his name since the said Gift Deed
is not registered.

6. The Supreme Court, in the case of Mahboob
1
Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Others , while considering the
validity of a gift executed by a person governed by
Mohammedan Law, held as under:
“5. Under Section 147 of the Principles of
Mahomedan Law by Mulla, 19th Edn., edited by Chief
Justice M. Hidayatullah, envisages that writing is not
essential to the validity of a gift either of moveable or
of immovable property. Section 148 requires that it is
essential to the validity of a gift that the donor should
divest himself completely of all ownership and
dominion over the subject of the gift. Under Section
149, three essentials to the validity of the gift should
be, (i) a declaration of gift by the donor, (ii)

1
(1995) 3 SCC 693

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026

HC-KAR


acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on
behalf of the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession of
the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee as
mentioned in Section 150. If these conditions are
complied with, the gift is complete. Section 150
specifically mentions that for a valid gift there should
be delivery of possession of the subject of the gift and
taking of possession of the gift by the donee, actually
or constructively. Then only the gift is complete.
Section 152 envisages that where the donor is in
possession, a gift of immovable property of which the
donor is in actual possession is not complete unless
the donor physically departs from the premises with
all his goods and chattels, and the donee formally
enters into possession. It would, thus, be clear that
though gift by a Mohammadan is not required to be in
writing and consequently need not be registered
under the Registration Act; for a gift to be complete,
there should be a declaration of the gift by the donor;
acceptance of the gift, expressed or implied, by or on
behalf of the donee, and delivery of possession of the
property, the subject-matter of the gift by the donor
to the donee. The donee should take delivery of the
possession of that property either actually or
constructively. On proof of these essential conditions,
the gift becomes complete and valid. In case of
immovable property in the possession of the donor,
he should completely divest himself physically of the
subject of the gift. No evidence has been adduced to
establish declaration of the gift, acceptance of the gift
by or on behalf of the minor or delivery of possession
or taking possession or who had accepted the gift
actually or constructively. Admittedly he was in
possession and enjoyment of the property till it was
sold to the appellant. Equally, in Mohammadan Law
mother cannot act nor be appointed as property
guardian of the minor. She equally cannot act as legal
guardian.”
(emphasis supplied)

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026

HC-KAR



7. The Supreme Court in the case of Rasheeda
Khatoon (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Ashiq
Ali, s/o. Lieutenant Abu Mohd. (Dead) Through Legal
2
Rpresentatives , while considering as to whether the gift
made by a person governed under Mohmmedan Law in writing
would require registration, held as under:
“17. From the aforesaid discussion of the
propositions of law it is discernible that a gift under the
Muhammadan Law can be an oral gift and need not be
registered; that a written instrument does not, under
all circumstances require registration; that to be a
valid gift under the Muhammadan Law three essential
features namely, (i) declaration of the gift by the
donor, (ii) acceptance of the gift by the donee
expressly or impliedly, and (iii) delivery of possession
either actually or constructively to the donee, are to be
satisfied; that solely because the writing is
contemporaneous of the making of the gift deed, it
does not warrant registration under Section 17 of the
Registration Act.
xxxxxxx
20. The real thrust of the matter, as we perceive,
is whether the essential ingredients of the gift as is
understood in the Muhammadan Law have been
satisfied. To elaborate, a deed of gift solely because it
is a written instrument does not require registration. It
can always be treated as a piece of evidence
evidencing the gift itself, but, a significant one, that
gift must fulfill the three essential conditions so that it

2
(2014) 10 SCC 459

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026

HC-KAR


may be termed as a valid gift under the Muhammadan
Law.”
(emphasis supplied)

8. The Supreme Court in the case of D.N. Joshi
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others vs.
3
D.C. Harris and Another , as well as in the case of Hafeeza
Bibi and Others vs. Shaikh Farid (Dead) by LRs and
4
Others has also reiterated the legal position as noticed above.

9. It is also relevant to notice the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Mansoor Saheb (Dead) and
5
Others vs. Salima (D) by Lrs. And Others , whereunder
after noticing its earlier judgments in the case of Mahboob
1 2 4
Sahab , Rasheeda Khatoon and Hafeeza Bibi , held as
under:
“28. Under Mohammedan Law, a gift is to be
effected in the manner laid down under the law. If the
conditions prescribed by that law are fulfilled, the gift
is valid, even though it is not effected by a registered
instrument. But if the conditions are not fulfilled, the

3
(2017) 12 SCC 624
4
(2011) 5 SCC 654
5
2024 SCC Online SC 3809

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026

HC-KAR


gift is not valid even though it may have been
effected by a registered instrument. Therefore, a valid
gift could be made by oral statements as well so long
as the three requirements as discussed above are met
thereby. This is because registration is not a
requirement which obviates the need for a gift to be
reduced in writing.”
(emphasis supplied)

10. The legal position, as noticed above, makes it clear
that a gift between persons to whom Mohammedan Law
applies, need not be in writing; and even if the same is in
writing, the same need not be registered as long as the gift
satisfies the three essential features as noticed above. Having
regard to the same, the impugned endorsement dated
11.02.2026, which refuses to enter the name of the petitioner
in terms of the gift deed dated 06.03.2007, since the same was
not registered, is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the relief
sought for in the present writ petition merits consideration.

11. Hence, the following:
ORDER

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed ;

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9679
WP No. 104826 of 2026

HC-KAR



(ii) The impugned endorsement bearing No.RRT/
ViVa/E-54434/2025-26 dated 11.02.2026
issued by the respondent-Tahsildar (Annexure-
A to the writ petition) is quashed;

(iii) The respondent is directed to make the
necessary changes in the revenue records in
terms of the Gift Deed dated 06.03.2007
(Annexure-B to the writ petition) forthwith, in
any event not later than a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.

(iv) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed of
accordingly.


SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE


YAN, CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21