DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS versus SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS versus SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

The appeal is allowed: the High Court erred in modifying the Trial Court decree without any cross-appeal; the respondent failed to prove a valid oral gift/Hiba to 10 acres for want of contemporaneous evidence of delivery and continuous possession and failed to satisfactorily prove status as daughter under Section 50; revenue records and registered sale deeds and long delay occasion constructive notice and the suit filed on 28.10.2013 is barred by limitation; accordingly the impugned judgments are set aside and the respondent's suit dismissed.

Parties
Appellants: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others; Respondent: Syeda Arifa Parveen
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
Civil Appeal allowed; Impugned judgments set aside; Plaintiff's suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Re Appreciation of Evidence Under Article 136, Oral Gift / Hiba, Section 50 Evidence Act (opinion on Relationship), Section 73 Evidence Act (comparison of Writings), Delivery of Possession and Mutation, Constructive Notice, Limitation — Article 58 and Article 59
Constitutional Law Evidence Property Law Limitation Law Mohammedan Law Re Appreciation of Evidence Under Article 136 Oral Gift / Hiba Section 50 Evidence Act (opinion on Relationship) +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others

Appellants

Syeda Arifa Parveen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity and misreading of evidence warranting re-appreciation under Article 136
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court finding on the oral gift without an appeal/cross-appeal by the Plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff established her claim as the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit under Section 50 Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed: the High Court erred in modifying the Trial Court decree without any cross-appeal; the respondent failed to prove a valid oral gift/Hiba to 10 acres for want of contemporaneous evidence of delivery and continuous possession and failed to satisfactorily prove status as daughter under Section 50; revenue records and registered sale deeds and long delay occasion constructive notice and the suit filed on 28.10.2013 is barred by limitation; accordingly the impugned judgments are set aside and the respondent's suit dismissed.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal allowed; Impugned judgments set aside; Plaintiff's suit dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned judgments set aside
  • Plaintiff's suit OS No. 212 of 2013 dismissed