India’s top court upholds validity of oral gifts under Islamic law
The Supreme Court rules written document not required for property gifts under Islamic law if intent, acceptance, and possession are proven
NEW DELHI, India (MNTV) — India’s Supreme Court has ruled that a verbal gift of property made under Islamic law is legally binding, even without a written document, provided three essential conditions are met — clear intent by the donor, acceptance by the recipient, and transfer of possession.
The verdict, delivered by Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, reaffirms a long-standing principle in Islamic jurisprudence that emphasizes the act of giving and receiving over formal documentation.
The ruling came in a dispute involving agricultural land in southern India, where an oral hiba — the Arabic term for a voluntary gift — had been challenged in court.
The bench clarified that recording a gift in writing does not alter its nature or convert it into a contractual instrument. “A gift under Islamic law does not require a written document to be valid. The mere act of writing it down does not change its character,” the judges said in their order.
In Islamic legal tradition, a hiba represents a voluntary and unconditional transfer of ownership made out of goodwill or affection.
The court explained that such a gift is complete once possession is delivered, either physically or symbolically — for example, when property records are updated or rent is collected in the recipient’s name.
The justices underscored that delivery of possession remains a critical element in determining legitimacy. “Constructive possession can be shown through actions such as applying for mutation in revenue records or transferring utilities,” the ruling stated, adding that continuous evidence of control by the recipient is vital to prove validity.
The decision also cautioned that courts will reject oral gifts where there is no credible proof of possession or where the donor continues to exercise control over the property. Written declarations, the court said, cannot substitute for the transfer of ownership required under Islamic law.