Ran Niwas Todi & Anr Vs. Bibi Jabrunnissa & Ors  INSC 895 (6 August 1996)
M.M.Punchhi, M.M.Venkataswami K. (J)
JT 1996 (7) 264 1996 SCALE (5)784
O R D
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.
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.
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.
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 the gift on its own, denuding its judgment
of the discussion on the tenancy laws. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No