Delhi District Court
Adeeba Zaki vs Zareen on 16 May, 2026
CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. MILAN GOEL: CIVIL JUDGE - 08
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
SUIT NO: 2669/2022
CNR NO : DLCT03-5866-2022
IN THE MATTER OF: -
1. SMT. ADEEBA ZAKI
W/O LATE MOHD. ZUHAIB
D/O MOHD. ZAKI
2. MASTER MOHD. UNAIB
S/O LATE MOHD. ZUHAIB
THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
I.E. PLAINITFF.
BOTH R/O 6/331, GALI NO.6,
RATTAN VIHAR, SULEMAN NAGAR,
DELHI.
...PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. MRS. ZAREEN
W/O MOHD. SHAMIM
R/O 932, KUCHA ROHELLA KHAN,
TIRAHA BEHRAM KHAN, DARYA GANJ,
NEW DELHI.
2. SUB-REGISTRAR,
PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI. ...DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 18.11.2022.
Date of Judgment : 16.05.2026 MILAN
GOEL
Page No. 1/20 Digitally signed by
MILAN GOEL
Date: 2026.05.16
16:08:23 +0530
CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the present suit instituted by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the Gift Deed dated 01.04.2021, allegedly executed by the deceased husband of Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1, is null, void, and non est in the eyes of law. The plaintiffs have further sought consequential reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with, alienating, creating third-party interest in, or otherwise misusing the property forming the subject matter of the aforesaid Gift Deed.
PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT
2. The brief facts, as set out in the plaint, are that Defendant No.1 is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 was married to one Mohd. Zuhaib, son of Mohd. Akram and brother of Defendant No.1, on 07.01.2020 in accordance with Muslim rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, one male child, namely Mohd. Unaib (Plaintiff No. 2), was born on 21.10.2020.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the marriage, Plaintiff No.1 started residing at her matrimonial home bearing House No.2546, First Floor, Flat No.4, Tiraha Behram Khan, Darya Ganj, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). It is alleged that from the very inception of the marriage, Defendant No.1 and her husband harboured an intention to usurp the properties of the deceased husband of Plaintiff No.1 and to dispossess the plaintiffs from the matrimonial home, which is stated to be the self-acquired property of the deceased husband of Plaintiff No.1.
MILAN
GOEL
Page No. 2/20 Digitally signed
by MILAN GOEL
Date: 2026.05.16
16:08:30 +0530
CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
4. The plaintiffs have further alleged that on 17.08.2021, the deceased husband of Plaintiff No.1, in collusion with Defendant No.1 and other family members, physically assaulted Plaintiff No.1, causing injuries to her. It is stated that thereafter Plaintiff No.1 made a PCR call, pursuant to which the police officials took her to Lok Nayak Hospital where her medical examination was conducted and an MLC was prepared. Thereafter, she left her matrimonial home and filed a maintenance suit against her Husband bearing No. 621/2021pending before the Ld. Family Court.
5. It is further averred that on 01.09.2022, Plaintiff No.1 suddenly came to know about the demise of her husband, whereupon she immediately rushed to her matrimonial home and informed the police by making a call on emergency number 100, as according to her there existed no apparent reason for the sudden death of her husband, who was allegedly neither suffering from any ailment nor physically unfit.
6. The plaintiffs further claim that after the demise of her husband, Plaintiff No.1 came to know that Defendant No.1, in a pre-planned manner and pursuant to a conspiracy allegedly hatched in collusion with her husband and certain other relatives, including one Aamir Yusuf, dishonestly and fraudulently got executed a Gift Deed dated 01.04.2021 in respect of the suit property in her favour. The said Gift Deed was registered with Defendant No.2 vide Registration No.3229, Additional Book No.1, Volume No.18775, pages 53-60 dated 01.04.2021.
7. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that although the said Gift Deed was allegedly executed on 01.04.2021, Plaintiff No.1 continued to reside in the matrimonial home till August, 2021 and, therefore, according to the plaintiffs, no physical possession of the gifted property was ever MILAN Page No. 3/20 GOEL Digitally signed by MILAN GOEL Date: 2026.05.16 16:08:34 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
transferred to Defendant No.1. On this basis, it is contended that the essential ingredients of a valid gift were not fulfilled. The plaintiffs allege that the sole object behind execution of the impugned Gift Deed was to deprive them of their lawful rights and entitlements.
8. It is also alleged that Defendant No.1, in collusion with her husband and other associates, had induced and influenced the deceased husband of Plaintiff No.1 to transfer his properties in their favour.
9. Lastly, it is stated that Plaintiff No.1 along with her minor child is presently residing at her parental home and is dependent upon her parents for day-to-day needs and maintenance. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property constitutes the only shelter available to them and the same is presently under the illegal occupation and use of Defendant No.1.
10.On these averments, the plaintiffs contend that the Gift Deed dated 01.04.2021 is illegal, unlawful, void, and not binding upon them, having allegedly been procured through inducement, influence, and conspiracy with the object of depriving the plaintiffs of their legal rights and maintenance.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
11.The present suit has been contested by the defendants by filing a Written Statement. At the outset, the defendants have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest in the suit property and, therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek the reliefs claimed in the present suit.
12.It is further averred that the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit on the basis of false, frivolous, and concocted allegations and that no cause Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL Page No. 4/20 GOEL Date:
2026.05.16 16:08:37 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
of action has arisen in their favour. The defendants have alleged that Plaintiff No.1 has deliberately concealed material facts and has approached the Court with unclean hands.
13.The defendants have further stated that during his lifetime, Late Mohd. Zuhaib, brother of Defendant No.1 and husband of Plaintiff No.1, was allegedly subjected to cruelty, harassment, and humiliation at the hands of Plaintiff No.1, who, according to the defendants, made his life miserable and pressured him to live separately from his family members. It is stated that on account of such conduct, Late Mohd. Zuhaib remained under mental stress and depression. The defendants claim that Defendant No.1 used to take care of her brother by providing him food, clothing, medicines, and emotional support and, owing to such love and affection, Late Mohd. Zuhaib voluntarily executed the Gift Deed in favour of Defendant No.1 while being in a sound disposing state of mind.
14.It is further the stand of the defendants that whenever disputes arose between Plaintiff No.1 and her husband, Defendant No.1 attempted to reconcile and counsel both parties so that they could lead a peaceful matrimonial life. However, according to the defendants, Plaintiff No.1 continued to quarrel with her husband and his family members on petty issues and allegedly subjected Late Mohd. Zuhaib to physical and mental cruelty.
15.The defendants have also alleged that Plaintiff No.1 had, on several occasions, physically assaulted Late Mohd. Zuhaib during his lifetime, though he tolerated the same in order to maintain the dignity and reputation of the family in society.
16.It is further stated that there was nothing suspicious or improper in the relationship between Defendant No.1 and her deceased brother, as both Digitally signed by MILAN Page No. 5/20 MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.05.16 16:08:41 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
shared a normal sibling relationship. According to the defendants, Late Mohd. Zuhaib used to confide in Defendant No.1 regarding the conduct of Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 merely provided emotional support to her brother during difficult times. The defendants have also asserted that Late Mohd. Zuhaib had, out of love and affection and in recognition of the sacrifices made by Defendant No.1, also executed a Will in her favour.
17.The defendants have categorically asserted that Defendant No.1 is the lawful and absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the duly executed and registered Gift Deed executed by Late Mohd. Zuhaib during his lifetime. It is their case that all legal formalities required for execution and registration of the Gift Deed were duly complied with and that the document was executed voluntarily by the donor while in a sound disposing state of mind.
18.The defendants have further alleged that Plaintiff No.1 herself admitted in the plaint that Late Mohd. Zuhaib was in good health and possessed a sound mind and, therefore, according to the defendants, the challenge to the Gift Deed on the ground of inducement or influence is wholly untenable.
19.Lastly, the defendants have alleged that the present suit has been filed at the instance of certain interested persons who are assisting and instigating Plaintiff No.1 in pursuing what has been described as a false and motivated litigation.
Digitally
signed by
MILAN
MILAN GOEL
GOEL Date:
2026.05.16
16:08:48
+0530
Page No. 6/20
CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
REPLICATION
20.In the replication filed by the plaintiffs, the averments made in the Written Statement have been denied as false, incorrect, and misconceived, while the contents of the plaint have been reaffirmed and reiterated.
21.It has been specifically contended by the plaintiffs that the recital contained in the impugned Gift Deed to the effect that Defendant No.1 was already in possession of the suit property and that possession thereof had been handed over to her by the donor through the said Gift Deed is false and contrary to the actual state of affairs. The plaintiffs have asserted that Plaintiff No.1 continued to remain in possession and occupation of the suit property even after the alleged execution of the Gift Deed and, therefore, according to them, the essential requirements of a valid gift were not fulfilled.
22.The plaintiffs have further reiterated that the suit property had been purchased by the deceased husband of Plaintiff No.1, namely Late Mohd. Zuhaib, who, according to the plaintiffs, was the absolute owner thereof during his lifetime. It is further stated that Plaintiff No.2, being the minor son of Late Mohd. Zuhaib, also possesses lawful rights and interests in the suit property.
ISSUES FRAMED
23.Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 03.11.2023, the following issues were framed for adjudication:
a. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of declaration, declaring gift deed dated 01.04.2021 as null and void? OPP.
MILAN
GOEL
Digitally signed
Page No. 7/20 by MILAN GOEL
Date: 2026.05.16
16:08:44 +0530
CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
b. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction qua directions to defendant no.2 to refrain from allowing transfer of the gifted property as prayed in prayer Clause(b)? OPP.
c. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in prayer Clause(c)? OPP.
d. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant no.1? OPD-1.
e. Relief.
PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE
24.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Description of Documents Exhibits/Mark
1. Printout of FIR no. 294/2021 Mark B.
2. Photocopy of MLC of Adiba W/o Ex.PW1/B Junaib from Lok Nayak Hospital (OSR) dated 18.08.2021
3. Photocopy of police complaint to Mark C SHO PS Chandani Mahal.
4. Photocopy of Gift Deed dated Mark A 01.04.2021 Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL Page No. 8/20 GOEL Date:
2026.05.16 16:08:53 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
25.During cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that she is a graduate (B.A.) and completed her graduation in the year 2015 from SOL, Delhi University. She stated that she had been residing at 6/331, Gali No. 6, Rattan Vihar, Suleman Nagar, Delhi since 2021-22, though she had left the said premises about one year ago and visits occasionally. She further stated that she was residing at the said premises on rent, which belongs to her maternal aunt (masi), Ms. Azra. She stated that the rent was between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month and was being paid by her family members. She stated that there was no rent agreement, though she was not sure whether any such agreement was executed, and volunteered that she could search for and produce the same before the Court.
26.PW-1 further deposed that she was residing at the aforesaid address along with her children. She stated that her date of separation was 17.08.2021 and that she was married on 07.01.2020. She further stated that her child, namely Mohd. Unaib, was born on 21.10.2020.
27.She further deposed that she is the second wife of her husband, though it was her first marriage. She stated that her husband's first wife has a daughter namely Afiya, aged about 7-8 years. She stated that she came to know about the gift deed of the suit property from her husband as well as his close friends, and that she gained such knowledge after the execution of the gift deed.
28.PW-1 further stated that after her marriage, she resided at property bearing no. 2546, First Floor, Flat No. 4, Tiraha Behram Khan, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002, and that the said flat had been purchased 10-15 days prior to her marriage. She stated that she resided there till 17.08.2021 and that the said property belonged to her husband. She Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL Page No. 9/20 GOEL Date:
2026.05.16 16:08:56 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
denied the suggestion that there existed any rent agreement in respect of the said property in the name of her husband and defendant no. 1.
29.She denied the suggestion that she did not take care of her husband after marriage or that she harassed him during his lifetime. She stated that she was not divorced from her husband and that she left the matrimonial home on the date of separation.
30.PW-1 further deposed that her husband died on 31.08.2022 between approximately 11:00 p.m. and 12 midnight. She stated that she was not aware of the cause of his death and that she was not present with him at the time of his death. She stated that her husband died at the suit property.
She further stated that she received information regarding his death during the night and reached the suit property the next morning. She admitted that she made a PCR call after reaching the suit property, stating that the defendant was beating her and alleging that she had poisoned her husband, which prompted her to make the PCR call. She denied the suggestion that her husband committed suicide in an auto rickshaw while being taken to the hospital.
31.PW-1 further stated that she did not meet her husband 1-2 days prior to his death. She stated that the reason for their separation was continuous altercations between them and further stated that her husband had fractured her finger. She stated that she does not remember whether she filed any medical documents in that regard, though she had filed a complaint when she suffered the said injury.
32.She denied the suggestion that she had filed a false case against defendant no. 1. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
MILAN
GOEL
Digitally signed
by MILAN GOEL
Date: 2026.05.16
Page No. 10/20 16:09:00 +0530
CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
33.After the examination and cross-examination of PW-1, who was the principal witness for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 28.11.2026, and thereafter, the matter was listed for defendants' evidence.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
34.In the present matter, sufficient opportunities were granted to the defendants to lead their evidence. However, for reasons best known to them, the defendants failed to examine any witness in support of their case and chose not to lead any defendants' evidence. Consequently, the right of the defendants to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 23.01.2026, and thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES
35.Learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the impugned Gift Deed dated 01.04.2021 is illegal, void, and not binding upon the plaintiffs, having been obtained by Defendant No.1 through undue influence, inducement, and manipulation exercised upon Late Mohd. Zuhaib. It was contended that Defendant No.1, being the real sister of the deceased, was in a position to dominate his will and, taking advantage of his vulnerable emotional condition and matrimonial discord, procured the execution of the Gift Deed in her favour with the sole intention of depriving the plaintiffs, particularly the minor child, of their lawful rights in the suit property.
36.It was further argued that the plaintiffs had consistently remained in possession and occupation of the suit property even after the alleged execution of the Gift Deed and till their separation in August, 2021. Attention of the Court was drawn to the recital in the Gift Deed claiming that possession of the property had already been handed over to Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL Date:
Page No. 11/20 GOEL 2026.05.16
16:09:03
+0530
CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
Defendant No.1. Learned counsel submitted that the said recital stands falsified from the testimony of PW-1 herself, who categorically deposed that she continued residing in the suit property till 17.08.2021. It was thus argued that one of the essential ingredients of a valid gift, namely delivery of possession, was absent in the present case and, therefore, the alleged gift was incomplete and legally unenforceable.
37.It was further contended that the conduct of Defendant No.1 and her family members throughout clearly demonstrates a pre-planned attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs from their matrimonial home. Learned counsel submitted that shortly after the marriage of Plaintiff No.1, disputes started arising within the matrimonial household and Plaintiff No.1 was allegedly subjected to physical assault and cruelty. Reliance was placed upon the testimony of PW-1 regarding the incident dated 17.08.2021 and the PCR call made by her, along with her assertion that she had suffered injuries at the hands of her husband and his family members.
38.Learned counsel further contended that despite serious allegations being raised by the plaintiffs regarding fraud, inducement, undue influence, and absence of delivery of possession, the defendants failed to enter the witness box or lead any evidence in support of the Written Statement. It was submitted that although opportunities were granted, the defendants deliberately chose not to adduce evidence and their right to lead defendants' evidence was ultimately closed by the Court. It was argued that the pleadings contained in the Written Statement, unsupported by any oral or documentary evidence, cannot be read as proof of the facts asserted therein.
39.Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants argued that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest in the MILAN GOEL Page No. 12/20 Digitally signed by MILAN GOEL Date: 2026.05.16 16:09:06 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
suit property. It was contended that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Late Mohd. Zuhaib, who was fully competent to transfer the same during his lifetime. The Gift Deed dated 01.04.2021, being a duly registered document, was stated to have been executed voluntarily by Late Mohd. Zuhaib in favour of Defendant No.1 out of love and affection.
40.It was further argued that the plaintiffs have failed to prove any allegation of fraud, coercion, undue influence, or conspiracy in the execution of the Gift Deed. Learned counsel submitted that no independent witness or documentary evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs to substantiate such allegations. It was contended that bald and unsubstantiated averments cannot invalidate a registered document carrying a presumption of legality and genuineness.
41.Learned counsel further submitted that PW-1 herself admitted during cross-examination that Late Mohd. Zuhaib was in sound health and possessed a sound disposing mind. It was argued that once the mental capacity of the donor stands admitted, the plea that the Gift Deed was procured through manipulation or influence becomes untenable. It was also argued that the plaintiffs admittedly separated from the deceased in August, 2021 and thereafter started residing separately.
42.It was further contended that mere residence of Plaintiff No.1 in the suit property for some period after execution of the Gift Deed does not invalidate the transfer. Learned counsel submitted that delivery of possession in family transactions can also be symbolic or constructive in nature and that the recital contained in the registered Gift Deed regarding handing over of possession carries evidentiary value. Reliance has been placed upon Sheikh Ibrahim v. Sheikh Rehman, BHC (2025) MILAN GOEL Page No. 13/20 Digitally signed by MILAN GOEL Date: 2026.05.16 16:09:09 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
43.I have heard the arguments and perused the record. I have also gone through the Judgments relied upon by the parties.
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS ISSUE NO. 1 WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED FOR A DECREE OF DECLARATION, DECLARING GIFT DEED DATED 01.04.2021 AS NULL AND VOID?
44.The burden to prove the present issue was upon the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Gift Deed dated 01.04.2021 was procured by Defendant No.1 through inducement, influence, and conspiracy and that the same is invalid as possession of the suit property was never handed over to Defendant No.1. However, upon appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden cast upon them.
45.At the outset, it is an admitted fact that Late Mohd. Zuhaib was the absolute owner of the suit property. It is also an admitted position that during his lifetime, he executed a registered Gift Deed dated 01.04.2021 in favour of Defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have nowhere disputed either the ownership of Late Mohd. Zuhaib or the execution of the said Gift Deed. The primary challenge raised by the plaintiffs pertains to the voluntariness of the transaction and alleged absence of delivery of possession.
46.In this regard, it is pertinent to note that except for bald allegations, no cogent evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiffs to establish that the Gift Deed was obtained by fraud, coercion, undue influence, or Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL Page No. 14/20 GOEL Date:
2026.05.16 16:09:13 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
misrepresentation. No medical record or independent evidence has been produced to show that Late Mohd. Zuhaib was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Gift Deed. Rather, the plaintiffs themselves have consistently pleaded that Late Mohd. Zuhaib was physically fit and not suffering from any ailment prior to his death. Therefore, the plea that the Gift Deed was obtained by manipulation remains wholly unsubstantiated.
47.Further, Ex. PW1/B (Colly), i.e. the medical documents of Plaintiff No.1, merely establish that an incident of physical assault took place on 17.08.2021. Similarly, Mark B, being FIR No.294/2021 registered under Sections 325/506 IPC at the instance of Plaintiff No.1 against her husband, and Mark C, i.e. police complaint lodged by Plaintiff No.1, only demonstrate that matrimonial disputes and discord were already subsisting between Plaintiff No.1 and her husband. However, these documents do not, in any manner, establish that Defendant No.1 exercised undue influence upon Late Mohd. Zuhaib or that the Gift Deed was illegally procured.
48.It is also significant that during her cross-examination, PW-1 categorically admitted that she had come to know about the execution of the Gift Deed from her husband himself after its execution. PW-1 further admitted that the suit property had been purchased by her husband approximately 10-15 days prior to their marriage. Thus, it stands established that during his lifetime itself, Late Mohd. Zuhaib had disclosed to Plaintiff No.1 about execution of the Gift Deed in favour of Defendant No.1. Despite having such knowledge, Plaintiff No.1 admittedly did not challenge the Gift Deed during the lifetime of her husband and chose to institute the present suit only after his demise. This MILAN GOEL Page No. 15/20 Digitally signed by MILAN GOEL Date: 2026.05.16 16:09:16 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
conduct assumes significance and casts a serious doubt upon the genuineness of the challenge raised by the plaintiffs.
49.As per Mohammaden Law, there are three essential elements which are necessary for a valid gift deed. They are: a) The gift has to be necessarily declared by the person giving the gift, i.e., the donor; b) Such a gift has to be accepted either impliedly or explicitly by or on behalf of the donee; and c) Apart from declaration and acceptance, there is also a requirement of delivery of possession for a gift to be valid.
50.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 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.
51.In the case of Rasheeda Khatoon (D) Through LRs. v. Ashiq Ali s/o Lt. Abu Mohd (D) Through LRs (2014) 10 SCC 459, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that under Mohammedan Law, actual physical delivery of possession is not always essential to complete a valid gift (hiba) of immovable property. Where both the donor and donee are already residing in the property at the time of the gift, constructive possession is sufficient. In such cases, the gift is completed when the donor performs an overt act clearly demonstrating an intention to transfer possession and relinquish all control over the property. It was held that :-
MILAN GOEL Digitally signed by MILAN GOEL Page No. 16/20 Date: 2026.05.16 16:09:19 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
{23. We have already stated, actual physical possession may not be always necessary if there is constructive possession of the donee. In this context we may reproduce Section 152 sub-section (3) of Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law [ (19th Edn.), p. 120.] :
"No physical departure or formal entry is necessary in the case of a gift of immovable property in which the donor and the donee are both residing at the time of the gift. In such a case the gift may be completed by some overt act by the donor indicating a clear intention on his part to transfer possession and to divest himself of all control over the subject of the gift."
24. "Possession" has been defined in Section 394 of the Muslim Law by Tyabji. It is thus:
"A person is said to be in possession of a thing, or of immovable property, when he is so placed with reference to it that he can exercise exclusive control over it, for the purpose of deriving from it such benefit as it is capable of rendering, or as is usually derived from it."}
52.The contention of the plaintiffs that the Gift Deed is invalid for want of delivery of possession also does not merit acceptance. The recital contained in the Gift Deed specifically records that Defendant No.1 was already in possession of the suit property and that possession stood handed over through the Gift Deed. Merely because Plaintiff No.1 continued residing in the suit property till 17.08.2021 would not, by itself, invalidate the Gift Deed, particularly in a case involving close family members residing together. In family arrangements and intra-family transfers, symbolic or constructive possession is legally recognized and Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.05.16 Page No. 17/20 16:09:42 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
physical exclusion of every occupant is not a sine qua non for a valid transfer.
53.It is further noteworthy that though the defendants failed to lead evidence, the burden to prove invalidity of the Gift Deed remained upon the plaintiffs. A registered document carries a presumption of genuineness and legality, and the plaintiffs were required to rebut the same by cogent and convincing evidence, which they have failed to do.
54.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Gift Deed dated 01.04.2021 is null, void, or liable to be cancelled. This issue is, therefore, decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NOS. 2 & 3 WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED FOR A DECREE OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION QUA DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT NO.2 TO REFRAIN FROM ALLOWING TRANSFER OF THE GIFTED PROPERTY AS PRAYED IN PRAYER CLAUSE (B)?
WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED FOR A DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AS PRAYED IN PRAYER CLAUSE (C)?
55.Both these issues are interconnected and are therefore being decided together.
56.The reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction claimed by the plaintiffs are consequential in nature and dependent upon the success of the main relief seeking declaration of the Gift Deed as null and void. Since this Court has already held under Issue No.1 that the plaintiffs have failed to establish any illegality or invalidity in the Gift Deed dated Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.05.16 Page No. 18/20 16:09:22 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
01.04.2021, the plaintiffs cannot claim any consequential injunctive relief against the defendants.
57.The material on record clearly shows that Plaintiff No.1 had separated from her husband on 17.08.2021 and thereafter started residing separately. The evidence further reflects that matrimonial disputes between the parties were already ongoing much prior to the death of Late Mohd. Zuhaib. The plaintiffs have failed to establish any subsisting legal right, title, or interest in the suit property warranting grant of injunction against Defendant No.1, who derives title through a registered Gift Deed.
58.Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs of mandatory injunction or permanent injunction as prayed for. These issues are also decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 4WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.1?
59.The burden to prove this issue was upon Defendant No.1. Though the defendants did not lead any evidence, the material brought on record by the plaintiffs themselves clearly demonstrates that the challenge raised by the plaintiffs against the Gift Deed is unsupported by cogent evidence. The plaintiffs admittedly had knowledge of the Gift Deed during the lifetime of Late Mohd. Zuhaib and yet no steps were taken to challenge the same at the relevant time.
60.Be that as it may, since the plaintiffs had approached the Court alleging illegality in the Gift Deed and claiming consequential reliefs, it cannot be said that absolutely no cause of action arose in their favour. However, the Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.05.16 Page No. 19/20 16:09:26 +0530 CS SCJ 2669/22 Adeeba Zaki & Anr. v. Zareen & Anr.
plaintiffs have failed to substantiate the said cause of action by legally admissible and convincing evidence.
61.Accordingly, this issue is decided partly in favour of the defendants to the extent that the plaintiffs have failed to prove any enforceable right against Defendant No.1.
RELIEF
62.In view of the findings returned on the aforesaid issues, the present suit stands dismissed.
63.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
64.No order as to costs.
65.File be consigned to Record Room.
(This judgment contains 20 pages and each page has been signed by me.) MILAN GOEL Digitally signed by Announced in the open court MILAN GOEL Date: 2026.05.16 16.05.2026 16:09:32 +0530 (MILAN GOEL) Civil Judge-08 (Central)/Delhi Page No. 20/20