Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed, Rejects Oral Gift Claim in Property Dispute: Jamila Begum vs. Shami Mohd. (2018)

LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a sale deed versus an oral gift in a property dispute. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Law. Case Name: Jamila Begum (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Shami Mohd. (D) Thr. Lrs. & Another. [Judgment Date]: 14 December 2018

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2018
Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format.
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a registered sale deed be invalidated by a claim of prior oral gift? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a property dispute. This judgment clarifies the importance of documentary evidence and the burden of proof in property matters. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee, with the majority opinion authored by Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute between Jamila Begum (the appellant) and Shami Mohd. (the original plaintiff, now represented by his legal heirs). Shami Mohd. filed a suit in 1978 seeking to invalidate a mortgage deed from 1967 and a sale deed from 1970, both in favor of Jamila Begum, concerning a disputed house. Alternatively, he sought redemption of the mortgage if it was deemed valid.

Shami Mohd. claimed that his father, Wali Mohd., had gifted the house to him through an oral gift on 30 September 1970. On the same day, Wali Mohd. also allegedly executed a Will in favor of Nababun, Shami Mohd.’s stepmother, mentioning the oral gift. Shami Mohd. argued that the 1967 mortgage deed was fraudulent, executed without consideration, and that the 1970 sale deed was a result of undue influence. Jamila Begum contested these claims, asserting that the mortgage and sale deeds were valid and that she had been in possession of the property since the sale. She also denied any oral gift or Will in favor of Shami Mohd. or Nababun.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially dismissed Shami Mohd.’s suit, upholding the validity of the mortgage and sale deeds. It also rejected the claim of an oral gift and Will, citing lack of evidence and the fact that the suit was filed beyond the limitation period. However, the first appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, accepting the oral gift and Will, and setting aside both the mortgage and sale deeds. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirmed the first appellate court’s judgment, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section deals with the mortgagor’s right to redeem the mortgaged property upon payment of the mortgage money. It states that “at any time after the money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property to the mortgagor.”
• Article 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963: These articles prescribe a limitation period of three years for filing a suit for declaration and for setting aside an instrument, respectively.
• Mohammedan Law: The judgment discusses the essentials of a valid oral gift (Hiba) under Mohammedan law, which include: (i) a declaration of gift by the donor, (ii) acceptance of the gift by the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession of the gifted property to the donee.

The Supreme Court also considered the legal principle that a registered document carries a presumption of valid execution, as established in Prem Singh and Others v. Birbal and Others (2006) 5 SCC 353, where it was held that “There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.”

Arguments

Appellant’s (Jamila Begum) Submissions:

• The sale deed was executed for due consideration, and the lower courts erred in placing the burden of proof on the appellant.
• When the respondent challenged the document as vitiated by fraud and undue influence, the burden was on the respondent to prove coercion and undue influence.
• The respondent failed to prove that Jamila Begum was in a position to influence Wali Mohd. to get the sale deed executed in her favor.
• The alleged oral gift and Will were not proven and were an afterthought.
• Delivery of possession, an essential ingredient of an oral gift, was not established by the respondent.
• The suit filed in 1978 to cancel the sale deed of 1970 and the mortgage deed of 1967 was barred by limitation.

Respondent’s (Shami Mohd.) Submissions:

• The first appellate court, being a final fact-finding court, correctly found that the respondent had proven the oral gift, and the mortgage and sale deeds were sham and void.
• It was unbelievable that Wali Mohd. would sell the property shortly after mortgaging it, claiming inability to redeem the mortgage.
• There were two mortgagees, but the sale deed was only in favor of Jamila Begum, without any evidence that the other mortgagee had relinquished her part.
• The High Court rightly decreed the prayer for redemption of the mortgage, and the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court and affirmed by the High Court were not erroneous.
• As per Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the period for filing a suit for redemption of mortgage is thirty years, and the suit filed in 1978 was within time.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the first appellate court and the High Court were right in placing the burden of proof on the appellant to prove that the sale deed dated 21.12.1970 was validly executed by Wali Mohd. with his free will, and whether the appellant discharged that burden?
2. Whether the High Court and the first appellate court were right in accepting the case of the plaintiff that Wali Mohd. orally gifted the suit house to the plaintiff and also executed the Will on 30.09.1970 in favor of Nababun, and in rejecting the sale deed dated 21.12.1970 relied upon by the appellant-defendant?
3. Whether the High Court was right in granting the alternative relief of redemption of the mortgage deed on payment of Rs. 11,000, treating the suit as a suit simpliciter for redemption of mortgage?
4. Whether the suit O.S. No. 130 of 1978 filed by the respondent-plaintiff in 1978 to set aside the mortgage deed dated 21.11.1967 and the sale deed dated 21.12.1970 was barred by limitation?
5. Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court is sustainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Prem Singh and Others v. Birbal and Others [CITATION]: The court relied on this case to emphasize that a registered document carries a presumption of valid execution, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging it.
• Abdul Rahim and Others v. Sk. Abdul Zabar and Others [CITATION]: The court used this authority to outline the essential conditions for a valid oral gift under Mohammedan law, highlighting that the respondent failed to meet these conditions.
• Subhas Chandr Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib and Others [CITATION]: This case was referenced to discuss the principles for determining undue influence, noting that the respondent’s pleadings and evidence were insufficient to establish it.
• Shivdev Singh and Another v. Sucha Singh and Another [CITATION]: This case was used to emphasize the right of redemption under the Transfer of Property Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The registered sale deed in favor of Jamila Begum carried a presumption of validity, and Shami Mohd. failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.
• Shami Mohd. did not establish the essential conditions for a valid oral gift under Mohammedan law, particularly the delivery of possession.
• The suit filed by Shami Mohd. was barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period for challenging the mortgage and sale deeds.
• The High Court erred in ordering redemption of the mortgage without following the proper procedure and without considering that the sale deed extinguished the right of redemption.

The court’s reasoning was a combination of factual analysis and legal principles, with a greater emphasis on legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to a lack of evidence and adherence to legal principles.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The registered sale deed was presumed valid, and the respondent failed to prove otherwise.
• The respondent did not establish the necessary elements of a valid oral gift.
• The suit was filed beyond the limitation period.
• The High Court’s decision to allow redemption of the mortgage was incorrect.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.”

“The conditions to make a valid and complete gift under the Mohammadan law are as under: (a) The donor should be sane and major and must be the owner of the property which he is gifting. (b) The thing gifted should be in existence at the time of hiba. (c) If the thing gifted is divisible, it should be separated and made distinct. (d) The thing gifted should be such property to benefit from which is lawful under the Shariat. (e) The thing gifted should not be accompanied by things not gifted i.e. should be free from things which have not been gifted. (f) The thing gifted should come in the possession of the donee himself, or of his representative, guardian or executor.”

“The right of redemption can be extinguished as provided in proviso to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. It can be extinguished either by the act of the parties or by decree of a court. The expression “act of parties” refers to some transaction subsequent to the mortgage, standing barred from the mortgage transaction.

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench comprised two judges, both of whom agreed on the final decision.

The court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, evidence, and relevant legal principles. The court emphasized the importance of registered documents and the burden of proof in property disputes. The court also clarified the requirements for a valid oral gift under Mohammedan law and the conditions for redemption of a mortgage.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving property disputes, particularly those involving claims of oral gifts and challenges to registered sale deeds. It reinforces the importance of documentary evidence and proper adherence to legal procedures.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced by the court. The court applied existing legal principles and precedents to the facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• A registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging it.
• Oral gifts under Mohammedan law must meet specific conditions, including the delivery of possession, to be valid.
• Suits challenging the validity of a sale deed or mortgage must be filed within the prescribed limitation period.
• A sale of the property extinguishes the right to redeem a mortgage.
• Courts must follow proper procedures when decreeing the redemption of a mortgage.

The judgment clarifies the legal position regarding property disputes involving registered sale deeds and oral gifts, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and adherence to legal timelines. This decision will likely influence future cases involving similar issues.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The appellant was not ordered to pay any costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging it. The court reiterated that oral gifts must meet specific conditions to be valid, and suits must be filed within the prescribed limitation period. This case reinforces the existing legal principles and does not introduce any new doctrines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and affirming the trial court’s decision. The court held that the sale deed in favor of Jamila Begum was valid, and the claim of an oral gift by Shami Mohd. was not proven. The suit was also found to be barred by limitation. This judgment emphasizes the importance of registered documents and the burden of proof in property disputes, providing clarity on the validity of oral gifts and the redemption of mortgages.

Category:

• Property Law
  • Sale Deed
  • Oral Gift
  • Mortgage
  • Limitation Act, 1963
  • Section 60, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882
  • Section 60, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Limitation Act, 1963
  • Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963
  • Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Jamila Begum vs. Shami Mohd. case?
A: The main issue is whether a registered sale deed can be invalidated by a claim of a prior oral gift.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the sale deed?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the registered sale deed, stating that it carries a presumption of valid execution.

Q: What are the requirements for a valid oral gift under Mohammedan law?
A: A valid oral gift requires a declaration of gift by the donor, acceptance of the gift by the donee, and the delivery of possession of the gifted property to the donee.

Q: What is the limitation period for challenging a sale deed?
A: The limitation period for challenging a sale deed is three years from the date the right to sue accrues or when the facts entitling the plaintiff to set aside the instrument became known.

Q: What happens to a mortgage when the property is sold?
A: The sale of the property extinguishes the right to redeem a mortgage, meaning the mortgage is merged with the sale.

Q: What should I do if I am involved in a property dispute?
A: It is important to have all property transactions documented and registered. If you are involved in a dispute, seek legal advice and act within the prescribed limitation periods.