Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SRI RAN NIWAS TODI & ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BIBI JABRUNNISSA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/08/1996
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 264 1996 SCALE (5)784
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 constructed 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 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.
The debate before the High Court centered round the
erroneous premise that the gifted property was agricultural
land to which the 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 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-
respondent was put in possession after an oral gift in her
favour, that per se should have bee, enough to keep her suit
decreed rejecting the pleas of the defendants-appellants
that the gift was 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 the extent to which we agree as to the
validity of tha gift on its own, denuding its judgment of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the discussion on the tenancy laws. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.