The Jharkhand High Court holds that vague pleas of oral gift lacking date, time, place and witness particulars are insufficient; tenants-in-common under Muslim law may pursue partition of specific inherited assets; decision reaffirms existing precedent on hiba proof and partial partition, binding on subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/15/2025 of WALLIULLAH Vs MD. MAHFOOZ ALAM |
| CNR | JHHC010433752024 |
| Date of Registration | 21-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Jharkhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil (Partition under Muslim personal law) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court reaffirmed that under Muslim law a valid hiba requires a clear declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession, all proved by specific pleadings (date, place, witnesses). Mere mutation or survey entries do not establish hiba. Co-heirs are tenants-in-common and may seek partition of any specific inherited property without including all ancestral assets. Limitation for partition under Muslim law begins from express denial or ouster, not from the ancestor’s death. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | 2025:JHHC:23996; FA No. 15 of 2025; (1971) 1 SCC 597; (2015) 14 SCC 450; AIR 1960 J&K 57; 1915 SCC OnLine Mad 401; 1922 SCC OnLine Sind JC 43; 1966 SCC OnLine SC 205; 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 123; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3809 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with Muslim personal law |
| Follows | SC precedents on hiba proof (Syed Shah Ghouse, Maqbool Alam Khan) and partition (Mulla ch. V) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A valid oral hiba must be specifically pleaded with date, place, time and witness details; vague references to “1967” or mutation alone will fail.
- Mere mutation or survey-record entry in donee’s name does not discharge the donor’s burden to prove declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession.
- Under Muslim law, co-heirs are tenants-in-common in precise shares and may sue for partition of any specific inherited property without suing on all ancestral assets.
- Limitation for partition of Muslim-law estates runs from express denial or ouster, not from the ancestor’s death.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Pleading & burden: The defendants’ written statements lacked foundational particulars of the alleged 1967 hiba (no date, place, witnesses named; filed by a son, not the donor).
- Oral evidence: Four defense witnesses were minors or interested relatives; none secured the required simultaneous declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession; key witnesses named were never produced.
- Documentary record: CNT Act proceedings of 1973–75 show the ancestor contesting as owner; mutation/correction slip (1987) was based on revenue entries, not hiba.
- Hiba requirements: Reaffirmed by SC and Mulla—an unequivocal declaration, acceptance and possession proved by credible, detailed evidence.
- Tenancy-in-common & partition: Under Muslim law heirs succeed to definite fractions; joint possession of the property justified partition; partial partition suits are maintainable.
- Limitation: Applying Mulla and Limitation Act §18, limitation runs from express denial (2014 refusal), not ancestor’s 1981 death.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants / Contesting Defendants)
- The ancestor orally gifted the entire property in 1967; survey and mutation entries attest to exclusive ownership.
- An oral hiba may be proved by conduct and mutation even if details are not recorded.
- Partial partition is impermissible; all ancestral properties must be included for maintainability.
Respondent (Plaintiffs)
- No foundational pleading or credible evidence for hiba—no date, place, witnesses or formal gift document.
- Mutation and survey entries alone cannot establish hiba; ancestor continued to contest ownership in revenue cases.
- Tenants-in-common may seek partition of the specific suit property without joining all ancestral assets.
- Limitation begins only on 2014 refusal to partition, suit filed within time.
Factual Background
Sk. Abdul Ghani and partners bought 6 bighas at Jamshedpur in 1952 and partitioned it in 1953, giving Ghani 1½ bigha. On Ghani’s death in 1981 his four sons and four daughters (one predeceased) inherited as tenants-in-common and held joint possession. In 2014 heirs sought partition; the Principal Defendant claimed a 1967 oral hiba but failed to plead or prove its basic elements. The trial court rejected the hiba claim, held joint possession intact and granted partition.
Statutory Analysis
- Mohammedan Law (Mulla ch. V): Heirs succeed as tenants-in-common in fixed shares; co-heir may claim partition of any specific asset; possession presumed common.
- Limitation Act 1908 §18: Time runs from discovery of fraud or denial of right, not from date of death.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing SC and doctrinal rules on hiba and partition under Muslim law affirmed.
Citations
- 2025:JHHC:23996 (Jharkhand HC)
- FA No. 15 of 2025
- (1971) 1 SCC 597
- (2015) 14 SCC 450
- AIR 1960 J&K 57
- 1915 SCC OnLine Mad 401
- 1922 SCC OnLine Sind JC 43
- 1966 SCC OnLine SC 205
- 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 123
- 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3809
- 2003 (2) JLJR 708
- (2009) 9 SCC 52