IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.29190 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI NAYAZ AHAMED S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT H.D.KUMARASWAMY EXTENSION PAVAGADA TOWN PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 302 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI BASHEER AHAMED SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1(a). SMT.SYEDA BANU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O LATE BASHEER AHAMED RETIRED VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BEHIND HARBAL BEAUTY PARLOR BADDIHALLI MAIN ROAD (80 FEET ROAD) KYATHASANDRA POST TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 104 1(b). SMT.SHABANA BANU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O ATHA ULLA D/O LATE BASHEER AHAMED RETIRED VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BEHIND HARBAL BEAUTY PARLOR BADDIHALLI MAIN ROAD (80 FEET ROAD) KYATHASANDRA POST TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 104 1(c). SRI P.B.HANUL ULLA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE BASHEER AHAMED RETIRED VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BEHIND HARBAL BEAUTY PARLOR BADDIHALLI MAIN ROAD (80 FEET ROAD) KYATHASANDRA POST TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 104 1(d). SRI P.B.MANUL ULLA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE BASHEER AHAMED RETIRED VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BEHIND HARBAL BEAUTY PARLOR BADDIHALLI MAIN ROAD (80 FEET ROAD) KYATHASANDRA POST TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 104 2. SRI VAZEER AHAMMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ R/AT GOVERNMENT HIGHER URDU PRIMARY SCHOOL ROAD UPPARAHALLI TUMAKURU – 572 103 3. SRI NAZEER AHAMMED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ R/AT P.G.LAYOUT, P.H.COLONY OPPOSITE TO TILAK PARK POLICE STATION TUMAKURU – 572 102 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2019, WHEREIN REJECTED THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PETITIONER COUNSEL FOR MARKING OF UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS AND PERMITTED TO DW1 TO MARK THOSE UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS AS EXHIBITS IN O.S.NO.68/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGAD, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE – A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order, in view of the settled position of law as expounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court at para-29 of the decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 1695 between Hafeeza Bibi & Ors. –vs- Shaikh Farid (Dead) by LRs and others, which reads as under:
“In our opinion, merely because the gift is reduced to writing by a Mohammadan instead of it having been made orally, such writing does not become a formal document or instrument of gift. When a gift could be made by MOhammadan orally, its nature and character is not changed because of it having been made by a written document. What is important for a valid gift under Mohammadan Law is that three essential requisites must be fulfilled. The form is immaterial. If all the three essential requisites are satisfied constituting valid gift, the transaction of gift would not be rendered invalid because it has been written on a plain piece of paper. The distinction that if a written deed of gift recites the factum of prior gift then such deed is not required to be registered but when the writing is contemporaneous with the making of the gift, it must be registered, is inappropriate and does not seem to us to be in conformity with the rule of gifts in Mohammadan Law”.
Writ petition is therefore rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-