TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court bars suit due to limitation, validates gift under Islamic Law</h1> <h3>ABDUL RAHIM & ORS Versus SK. ABDUL ZABAR & ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by limitation as the respondent filed objections in 1976, making the 1980 suit beyond the three-year ... Genuineness of a Gift – legal or illegal – period of limitation in challenging gift – Held that: - A registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party questioning the genuineness of the transaction to show that in law the transaction was not valid. We have noticed hereinbefore that Razak had been receiving rent from the tenants. In fact, the respondent No. 1 in his suit claimed a decree for apportionment of rent. We would presume that Razak had been collecting rent from the tenants during the life time of his father. The agency to collect rent, however, came to end as soon as an order of mutation was passed in his favour. Apart from the fact that the Razak was allowed to continue to collect rent which having regard to the declaration made in the deed of gift must be held to be on his own behalf and not on behalf of the donor. High court failed to take into consideration the import and purport of the donor's application before the Tahasildar – HC committed a manifest error in holding that the order of mutation on that basis was not decisive.Period of limitation in filing a suit – gift deed dated 21.2.1973 - Article 59 of the Limitation Act - The suit should have been filed within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of the fact that the transaction which according to the plaintiff was void or voidable had taken place. The suit having not been filed within a period of three years, the suit has rightly been held to be barred by limitation. Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.2. Whether Haji Sk. Abdullah had handed over the possession of the properties in question in favor of Razak.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation:The trial court initially dismissed the suit, opining that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 6.4.1977, and since the suit was instituted on 2.9.1980, it was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 59 stipulates a three-year period to cancel or set aside an instrument, decree, or contract from the date when the plaintiff first became aware of the facts entitling them to such relief. The High Court, however, held that the respondent No. 1 came to know of the deed of gift only in 1980, thus deeming the suit within the limitation period. The Supreme Court, referencing Md. Noorul Hoda vs. Bibi Raifunnisa & ors. and Sneh Gupta vs. Devi Sarup & Ors., clarified that the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the transaction. Since the respondent No. 1 had filed objections in 1976, the suit filed in 1980 was indeed barred by limitation.2. Whether Haji Sk. Abdullah had handed over the possession of the properties in question in favor of Razak:The core issue was whether the donor had handed over possession of the property to the donee, Razak, as required under Islamic Law for a gift (Hiba) to be valid. The conditions for a valid gift under Mohammadan Law include the donor being the owner, the gift being in existence, the gift being lawful, and the possession being transferred to the donee. The Supreme Court noted that a gift becomes complete when the ownership is transferred with immediate effect, and possession is taken by the donee or someone on their behalf. The deed of gift dated 21.2.1973 was registered and contained a clear declaration of divestment of property. The donor had also applied for the mutation of Razak's name in the revenue records, indicating constructive possession. The High Court's error lay in misconstruing the order of the Revenue Authority and failing to recognize the significance of the donor's application for mutation. The Supreme Court emphasized that constructive possession, as evidenced by the donor's actions and the order of mutation, sufficed to meet the legal requirements for a valid gift under Islamic Law.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming that the suit was barred by limitation and that the possession had indeed been handed over to Razak, validating the deed of gift. The appeal was allowed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
