HAFEEZA BIBI & ORS. VS. SHAIKH FARID (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Abstract

“Shaik Dawood had three sons and five daughters: Shaik Farid, Mehboob Subhani, and Mohammed Yakub, as well as Sappoora Bibi, Khairunnisa Begum, Noorajahan Begum, Rabia Bibi, and Alia Bibi. All five of his daughters were married. His wife died before him. Shaik Dawood resigned from his position as Reserve Head Constable. He was also a practitioner of Unani medicine. Shaik Farid, Sappoora Bibi, Khairunnisa Begum, Noorajahan Begum, and Mohd. Iqbal (son of Alima Bibi) (hereinafter called "the plaintiffs") filed a suit for partition against Mehboob Subhani, Mohammed Yakub, and Rabia Bibi (hereinafter called "Defendant 1," "Defendant 2," and "Defendant 3," respectively)”. The son and daughters of Syed Ali, who was Shaik Dawood's brother, were also named as defendants. They will be called "Defendants 4 through 7" from now on. Sunni law is used to decide who wins and who loses. In their complaint, the plaintiffs said that Shaik Dawood died without a will on December 19, 1968, and that the plaintiffs and Defendants 1–3 were now entitled to A schedule properties and half of B schedule properties. “The plaintiffs said that Defendants 4–7 are entitled to other half-shares in B schedule properties. Mohammed Yakub, the second defendant, disputed the partition claim. He said that on 5/2/1968, Shaik Dawood performed a hiba (gift deed) and gave him his possessions. That day, Shaik Dawood gave him custody of the hiba assets. The plaintiffs were well aware that the 'hiba' had been completed. In his written statement, Defendant 2 also alluded to a prior partition action that was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Several of the original parties have passed away throughout the course of the litigation”. Their legal counsel has been included in the record. The trial court outlined four concerns in the lawsuit. Relevant for the purposes of this appeal before the Supreme Court was Issue 2, which asked whether the hiba dated 5-2-1968 is true, legitimate, and enforceable against the plaintiffs. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court answered Issue 2 in the positive and determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the shares demanded in the complaint. Therefore, by decision and decree dated April 27, 1988, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs' claim. Consequently, the original plaintiffs appealed the trial court's ruling and decree to the Supreme Court. “The appellants argued before the High Court, among other things, that the gift dated 5-2-1968, being in writing, was required to be registered and stamped, and in the absence of such registration and stamping, the gift deed could not be accepted or relied upon for any purpose, and such unregistered gift deed would not confer any title upon Defendant 2. The High Court was convinced by the reasoning and ruled that the unregistered gift deed would not transfer any ownership to Defendant 2 as he argued. As stated before, the High Court granted the appeal, vacated the trial court's verdict and decree, and remanded the case to that court for the purpose of issuing a preliminary decree. These appellants are the lawful heirs of Defendant 2 who passed away”.