Madras High Court
E. Mohamed Mustafa @ Kamal vs E. Nousad on 5 September, 2020
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 09.08.2021
Delivered on : 17.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos.6059 and 6062 of 2021
S.A.No.300 of 2021:
E. Mohamed Mustafa @ Kamal ... Appellant/Appellant
/Defendant
Vs.
E. Nousad ... Respondent/Respondent
/Plaintiff
S.A.No.301 of 2021:
E. Mohamed Mustafa @ Kamal ... Appellant/Appellant
/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.E. Nousad
2.S. Rahimathunisha ... Respondents/Respondents
/Defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/31
S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
Prayer in S.A.No.300 of 2021: Second Appeal filed under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and
Decree in A.S.No.9 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal
District Judge, Coimbatore dated 05.09.2020 confirming the
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi dated 23.11.2018.
Prayer in S.A.No.301 of 2021: Second Appeal filed under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and
Decree in A.S.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal
District Judge, Coimbatore dated 05.09.2020 confirming the
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.160 of 2011 on the file of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi dated 23.11.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
in both appeals
For Respondents : Mr.L. Mouli
in both appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.160 of 2011 who is the defendant in suit O.S.No.15 of 2009 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, is the appellant before this Court in both the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 Second Appeals. The parties are referred to in their ranking before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi in O.S.No.15 of 2009.
2.The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.15 of 2009 for a declaration that the suit property belongs to him and to recover possession of the same from the defendant. It was his case that the suit property which fell within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, was purchased by his mother, S.Rahimathunisha under a registered Sale Deed dated 06.06.1969 and she had out of her income constructed a house and she had also constructed another building to the South of the suit property in which she was residing.
3.It is his further case that his mother had gifted him the building consisting of a ground and first floor put up on the Northern portion of the property purchased by her under a Sale Deed dated 06.06.2018 together with the appurtenant vacant site under an oral Hiba dated 23.07.2007. The plaintiff would submit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 that he had accepted the gift and taken possession of the same on the very same day. Thereafter, the oral Hiba has been reduced into writing. The defendant was in permissive occupation of the first floor of this building. He is the other son of S.Rahimathunisha and N.S.H. Ibrahim and the brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff would further submit that after the gift, since there was some interference in his possession by his mother, he had filed O.S.No.324 of 2001 for a permanent injunction and the same had also been decreed in his favour. The plaintiff would submit that the revenue records have been mutated in his name as also the Property Tax, etc., He has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since the Hiba. When the plaintiff had requested the defendant several times in person to vacate and hand over the possession of the first floor the defendant refused to do so. On 19.01.2009, not only did he emphatically refuse to vacate the premises but he had also threatened the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff had no other alternative except to approach this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
4.The defendant had refuted the case of the plaintiff by contending as follows:
➢ The property was purchased in the name of his mother, S.Rahimathunisha by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant N.S.H.Ibrahim and it is he who had put up the construction. Their mother did not contribute anything for the purchase or the construction.
➢ The defendant's father had fallen ill and had to spend huge amounts for his treatment, as a result of which he had incurred huge debts. Therefore the father of the defendant had requested him to settle the debts and towards this, the defendant had given a sum of Rs.8,45,000/- to the father. The father had executed a Promissory Note on 05.06.2004 acknowledging the debts. As per the agreement with his father during the execution of the Promissory Note, the defendant was permitted to continue to reside in the first floor as a tenant and the interest amount was adjusted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 towards monthly rent.
➢ After the demise of the father, the mother had turned against him and he understood that his mother had executed a Hiba in favour of the plaintiff. However, even after the demise of his father, he continues to be in possession in the first floor as a tenant.
➢ The defendant can be disturbed of his possession only by due process of law.
➢ The defendant has filed O.S.No.228 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pollachi, subsequently, renumbered as O.S.No.160 of 2011 after transfer to the Subordinate Court, Pollachi.
➢ The Cause of Action for filing the suit O.S.No.160 of 2011 was on account of the fact that the defendant's access to the first floor was through the front room in the ground floor where the plaintiff and his family members were residing and the defendant apprehended that the plaintiff would prevent access to him to reach the first floor. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
5.The defendant had also filed an Additional Written Statement in which he has raised the following defences:
(1)that the suit is undervalued and (2)that there was no valid Hiba as the same is not true and genuine in the eyes of Law.
6.The learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, had framed the following issues in the suit O.S.No.160 of 2011:
"(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
(2)Whether the Pronote is a forged one? (3)Whether the plaintiff is a tenant in B schedule property?
(4)To what other relief?"
and the following issues in the suit O.S.No.15 of 2019:
"(1)Whether the defendant has been in possession and occupation of the first floor of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 suit property as a tenant?
(2)Whether the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.8,45,000/- to his father and he is in occupation in lieu of the interest for the said amount?
(3)Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property?
(4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property as prayed for?
(5)What other relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled for?"
7.When parties had gone to trial the evidence was recorded in the suit O.S.No.15 of 2009. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and his mother, the donor as PW.2. In support of his contention, he had marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. On the side of the defendant, he had examined himself as D.W.1 and had marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9. Ultimately, the learned Judge decreed the suit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit filed by the defendant. Challenging the said Judgment and Decree, the defendant had filed A.S.No.8 of 2019 against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.160 of 2011 and A.S.No.9 of 2019 was filed challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.15 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Principal District Judge also confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeals. Challenging the same, the defendant as appellant has filed the above referred Second Appeals.
8.The Second Appeals have been admitted on the following Substantials Question of Law:
"(1)Whether the order of the Courts below is not against the Judgment of the Madras High Court in 2002 (1) MLJ 836?
(2)Whether the order of the Courts below is not against the settled view of the Judgment in AIR 1958 Mad 527, AIR 1975 AP 271, AIR 1972 Ker 27, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 AIR 1932 PC 13 at 19, AIR 1966 SC 1194, AIR 1964 SC 275, 1991 (2) SCC 532, 2016 (I) MLJ 775 (SC)?.
(3)Whether the Courts are right in failing to note that the plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 2009 had failed to establish the truth and validity of the oral Hiba?"
9.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has addressed the following arguments:
1) that the Hiba Settlement which has been reduced into writing and marked as Ex.A.2 has not been registered and is inadmissible in evidence and therefore, cannot be considered.
Being an invalid document, no right will flow to the plaintiff.
2) that the Hiba is invalid on account of the fact that there are no witnesses to the oral Hiba.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire case of the plaintiff rest on Para 4 of the Plaint which reads as follows:
@4/nkw;go fpiuaj;jpw;F th';fpa
,lj;jpy; tlg[uk; cs;s nky;kho lhh;R
fl;olk;/ fhypaplk; tifawh rfpjj;ij
nkw;go ucw;kj;Jd;dprh mth;fs;
thjpf;F fle;j 23/07/2007k; njjpapy;
cwpg;gh vd;Dk; jhd rhrdj;jpd; K:yk;
brhj;J RthjPdk; bfhLj;J
ghj;jpag;gLj;jp tpl;lhh;. thjp fPH;
tPl;oy; FLk;gj;Jld; FoapUe;J
tUfpwhh;. md;nw nkw;go thjpa[k;
nkw;go brhj;J RthjPdKk; bgw;Wf;
bfhz;lhh;/ nkw;go cwpg;gh rhrdk;
gjpt[ bra;ag;glhj xU Mtzk; MFk;/
mjDila nehl;lhp gg;spf; rhd;wpl;l
efy; ,j;Jld; xg;g[tpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11/31
S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
nkw;go ucw;kj;Jd;dprhtpd; kw;bwhU
kfd; jhd; gpujpthjp Mthh;. nkw;go
fl;olj;jpd; nky;khoapy; cwpg;gh vGJk;
rkaj;jpnyna gpujpthjp jw;fhypfkhf
FoapUe;jhh;/ jhth brhj;jpy;
gpujpthjpf;F vt;tpj rk;ge;jKk;
chpika[k; fpilahJ/ nkYk;
gpujpthjpf;F mtuJ jfg;gdhuhy;
bghs;shr;rp filtPjpapy; c;ss 2
filfs; bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sd/@
11.This claim has been refuted by the defendant by contending that the property did not belong to S.Rahimathunisha since the entire sale consideration for the purchase of the property and the construction of the building has been given only by her husband N.S.H. Ibrahim, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant. Further, on account of the money spent by him for his treatment, it was the defendant who had advanced a sum of Rs.8,45,000/- to his father. His father had permitted him to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 continue to reside in the first floor of the suit property and the amount due towards interest was to be adjusted from out of the rents payable. Hence, the defendant continued to be in possession as a tenant. The learned counsel would submit that the possession of the defendant cannot be disturbed since the father had owed huge amounts and permitted him to live in the first floor, he being the person who had funded the purchase of the property and constructions of the building.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would also draw the attention of this Court to Issue No.3 framed in O.S.No.15 of 2009, i.e., Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property? He would submit that while returning his findings in respect of this Issue, the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff had not proved his taking of possession and that the gifting of the property had not been witnessed by two persons. He would refer to Para 149 of the Mulla's Mahomedan Law which provides the essentials ingredients https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 required to constitute a valid gift (Hiba) of a gift and Para 150 talks about delivery of possession. He would therefore submit that the gift as well as its acceptance and delivery of possession have to be proved. According to him, in the instant case, the plaintiff has not been in a position to prove the same as there are no witnesses examined on the side of the appellant. The plaintiff had not examined those persons who had witnessed the oral gift by S.Rahimathunisha.
13.The learned counsel for the appellant would rely on the following Judgments in support of his case:
(1)AIR 1932 PC 13 at 19 [Nawab Mirz Mohammad Sadiq Ali Khan and others v.
Nawab Fakr Jahan Begam and others] (2)AIR 1958 Mad 527 at 531 [S.V.S.Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and others v. Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and others] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 (3)AIR 1964 SC 275 [Valia Peedikakkandi Kutheessa Ummasnd others v. Pathakkalan Naravanath Kumhamuand others] (4)AIR 1966 SC 1194 [Maqbool Alam Khan v.
Mst. Khodaija and others] (5) AIR 1972 Ker 27 [Makku Rowther's Children Assan v. Manahapara Charayil] (6)AIR 1975 AP 271 [Chota Uddandu Sahib v.
Masthan Bi (died) and others] (7)2002 (1) MLJ 836 [ N.A.Abdul Rahim and Razia Begam v. A.M.K.Mariam Bibi, S.M.Mumtaz] (8)in S.A.No.367 of 2021 dated 15.04.2021 in the case of Gaffor Sahib v. Mumtaj.
14.Per contra, Mr.L. Mouli, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that Para 149 of the Mulla's Mahomedan Law only contemplates the following three provisions:
(1)The Offer of the Gift.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 (2)The Acceptance of the Gift.
(3)The Delivery of Possession.
Nowhere is there a requirement that the Hiba should be witnessed by two persons.
15.The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would further submit that Para 147 of the Mahomedan Law clearly stipulates that the gift need not be in writing in order to validate the same. The plaintiff has examined the donor i.e., his mother as P.W.2, who has spoken cogently about the oral gift made by her and also the same being reduced into writing and the possession having been given to the plaintiff. The Appellate Court in a very great detail has examined the evidence of P.W.2. He would also point out that Ex.A.2 - Confirmation of the oral Hiba in writing has been witnessed by his father himself. He would also contend that the defendant is not a competent person to question the validity of the Hiba. In support of this argument, he has relied upon the Judgment reported in 2016 (2) KLT SN 109 [Ummul FAiza v. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 Akbar Quarashi], the Kerala High Court has held that it is only the donor/the person claiming under him who can question the non delivery of possession.
16.Mr. L. Mouli would also draw the attention of this Court to the cross examination of D.W.1 on 11.07.2018, wherein he has admitted that after the demise of his father, he had filed a suit for Partition of the properties of his father in O.S.No.44 of 2010. He would further admit that in this suit, the property which is the subject matter of the instant suit has not been included which would clearly go to show that even the defendant has accepted that this property is the exclusive property of the mother. He would submit that the provisions of the Mulla's Mahomedan Law relating to Hiba does not contemplate Hiba to be in writing. Therefore, he would submit that the defendant has not been able to make out any case for setting aside the well considered Judgment of the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 DISCUSSION:
17.The Substantial Question of Law which has been raised in the above Second Appeal is primarily whether the plaintiff has proved the delivery of possession? and the other Substantial Question of Law that has been submitted for consideration of this Court is that whether the plaintiff has failed to establish the truth and the validity of the oral Hiba?. The proposition which is canvassed in the instant Second Appeal is a well travelled path, however, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to move away from the beaten path by primarily resting his arguments on the fact that the oral gift by S.Rahimathunisha (PW2) has not been witnessed by the two persons.
18.Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with transfer of property by way of a gift. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act would read as follows:
"Section 123 - Transfer how effected -For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.
For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.
Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered."
19.Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act carves out an exception in the case of a Hiba (gift) which is a concept peculiar to Mahomedan Law.
20.Chapter XI of the Mahomedan Law deals with Gifts. The Hiba or Gift is defined in Para 138, as "a transfer of property, made immediately, and without any exchange", by one person to another, and accepted by or on behalf of the latter. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
21.Para 147 provides that writing is not essential to validate a gift either of movable or of immovable property. Para 148 provides that one of the essential characteristic to validate the gift is that the donor shall completely divest himself of all ownership and dominion over the subject matter of the gift.
22.Section 149 deals with the three essentials of a Gift and would read as follows:
"It is essential to the validity of a gift that there should be (1) a declaration of gift by the donor; (2) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee; and (3) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee as mentioned in Sec. 150. If these conditions are satisfied, the gift is complete."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
23.Para 152 talks about delivery of possession being either actual or constructive. Sub Clause (2) therein would state that by registering a gift or deed, it does not cure the want of delivery of possession.
24.A reading of Para 149 would clearly indicate that the delivery of possession is a very important ingredient of Hiba. The concept of Hiba contemplates three main ingredients.
"(1)a declaration of gift by the donor (IJAB) (2)an acceptance of the gift (QABUL) and (3)Delivery of possession (QUABZA) Therefore, if these ingredients of Hiba are present the Hiba will get validated. The challenge to the Hiba made by the mother in favour of the plaintiff is also on the ground that the subsequent document reducing the early oral Hiba into writing has not been registered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 21/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
25.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 1205 [Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail and others] held as follows:
"Though gift by a Mohammadan is not required to be in writing and consequently, need not be registered under the Registration Act; 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 22/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
26.In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rasheeda Khatoon (D) through LRs v. Ashiq Ali (D through LRs in Civil Appeal No.603 of 2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quoted elaborately from the earlier judgments while considering Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act and had observed as follows:
"16. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 23/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 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. "
27.In another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 (5) SCC 564 [Hafeeza Bibi and others v. Shaikh Farid (Dead) by LRs and others in Civil Appeal No.1714 of 2005], the learned Judges had referred to the principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla relating to the legal position vis-a- vis a Gift by a Muslim.
28.The learned Judges had considered the necessity of a compulsory registration if the Gift or Hiba was in writing. The learned Judges placed reliance of Sections 123 and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 24/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 Act and also on the judicial pronouncement in this regard from different High Courts. Ultimately, in Para 29, the learned Judges had observed as follows:
"29. In our opinion, merely because the gift is reduced to writing by a Mohammadan instead of it having been made orally, such writing does not become a formal document or instrument of gift. When a gift could be made by Mohammadan orally, its nature and character is not changed because of it having been made by a written document. What is important for a valid gift under Mohammadan Law is that three essential requisites must be fulfilled. The form is immaterial. If all the three essential requisites are satisfied constituting valid gift, the transaction of gift would not be rendered invalid because it has been written on a plain piece of paper. The distinction that if a written deed of gift recites the factum of prior gift then such deed is not required https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 25/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 to be registered but when the writing is contemporaneous with the making of the gift, it must be registered, is inappropriate and does not seem to us to be in conformity with the rule of gifts in Mohammadan Law."
29.The appellant has relied on the Judgment reported in AIR 1972 Ker 27 [Assan v. Manahapara Charayil], wherein Justice V.R.Krishnan Iyer as Judge of the Keral High Court had observed as follows:
“The conclusion that I reach about the construction of Section 129 of the Act, against the backdrop of Article 44 and inseminated by Articles 14 and 15 (1) is that such gifts as are non-secular will be exempt from the operation of Chapter VII of the Transfer of Property Act, but no other. Ext. B1 is a plain secular gift by father to children and cannot claim exemption from compliance with Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 26/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. The logical culmination of this discussion is that the plaintiff's suit for partition must be decreed. I affirm the decree granted by the courts below and there is no dispute regarding the shares. The view that I take may, to a little extent, update the law of gifts by eliminating an exception which is out of tune with Article 44 and the secular basis of modern India. May be one has occasionally to pay homage to Lord Atkin who exhorted in a different context.”
30.This Judgment was considered and distinguished by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the Judgment reported as Chota Uddandu Sahib v. Masthan Bi (died) and others in AIR 1975 AP 271. I am persuaded to concur with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 27/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
31.Therefore, on a conspectus of the above discussion, I hold that factum of registration is a non issue in the instant case as Ex.A.2 only reduces into writing as earlier oral Hiba already given effect to.
32.Let us consider the argument regarding delivery of possession reading of Para 149 of the Mulla's Mahomedan Law makes it clear that the delivery of possession could be actual or constructive. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the donor and the donee who are the mother and son respectively are residing in the subject matter of the gift and therefore, there is a presumption that the possession was taken over. Further, a reading of Ex.A.2 would show that on 07.01.2000 itself, the constructive possession had been handed over to the plaintiff who had accepted the same. Therefore, the ingredients of IJAB, QABUL and QUABZA are manifest in the instant Hiba.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 28/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
33.Coming to the second limb of the argument that the Hiba is invalid on the ground that there were no witnesses present at the time of the donor effecting the Hiba, reference to Ex.B.2 would make useful reading. This is the Plaint that had been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.324 of 2001. In the said suit filed against S.Rahimathunisha, the plaintiff has not only spoken about the oral Hiba but also Ex.A.2. While discussing the oral Hiba, the plaintiff had stated that the oral gift had been made in the presence of his father Ibrahim Sahib and another well wisher of their family A.Kuppusamy Mudaliar. The defendant's mother had not refuted any of these contentions and on the contrary, she had submitted herself to a decree which is evident from the reading of Ex.A.4 which is the Judgment in O.S.No.324 of 2001 of the lelarned District Munsif, Pollanchi.
34.Therefore, it is very clear that the oral Hiba of S.Rahimathunisha which has been reduced into writing thereafter https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 29/31 S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 under Ex.A.2 is a valid Hiba as the plaintiff has established the existence of the three important ingredients namely, tendering of gift, acceptance and taking delivery of possession of the subject matter of the gift. The Substantial Questions of Law are answered against the appellant.
This Second Appeals are dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
17.08.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
mps
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The Subordinate Judge,
Pollachi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
30/31
S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021
P.T. ASHA. J,
mps
Pre-delivery Common Judgment
in
S.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2021 &
C.M.P.Nos.6059 and 6062 of 2021
17.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
31/31