DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS versus SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

Citation: [2025] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-10-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 1187
Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others 
v. 
Syeda Arifa Parveen
(Civil Appeal No. 12512 of 2025)
07 October 2025
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity and 
misreading of evidence, warranting re-appreciation of evidence 
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India; whether the High 
Court is correct in reversing the finding of the Trial Court on the 
Oral Gift without an appeal/cross-appeal by the Plaintiff; whether 
the Plaintiff established her claim as the daughter of K and A; 
whether the claim of the Plaintiff under oral gift/Hiba is validly 
proved, and the title is derived to an extent of 10 acres; whether 
the suit for declaratory relief is barred by limitation.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.136 – Re-appreciation of evidence 
under – Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity 
and misreading of evidence, warranting re-appreciation of 
evidence u/Art.136:
Held: Though, re-appreciation of evidence is normally not 
undertaken by this Court u/Art.136 however, in a given case, the 
re-appreciation of evidence is not barred u/Art.136 – Incorrect 
appreciation of evidence and few inconsistent findings in the 
impugned judgments, warrant re-appreciation of evidence to 
appreciate the real issue between the parties – Re-appreciation 
undertaken primarily to examine whether the Trial Court and the 
High Court have accurately recorded the findings – Objection of the 
respondent-plaintiff that the re-appreciation of oral and documentary 
evidence is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this 
case, rejected – Impugned Judgments set aside – Plaintiff’s suit 
is dismissed. [Paras 14, 15]
Appellate court – Power of, to modify decree – Suit filed by the 
respondent-plaintiff for declaration that she is the owner of the 
* Author
2
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Suit Property – Trial Court decreed the suit, in part, granting 
a decree of title and permanent injunction to an extent of 18 
acres and 21 guntas of the Suit Property, however, disbelieved 
the case of the plaintiff on oral gift/hiba – Appeal filed by the 
defendants – High Court recognised the oral gift; modified 
the decree and enhanced the plaintiff’s share by including 
the 10 acres allegedly gifted by her mother through oral gift 
and 3/4th share in the balance of extent in the suit property – 
Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the finding 
of the Trial Court on the Oral Gift without an appeal/cross-
appeal by the Plaintiff:
Held: Impugned judgment did not consider whether a ground is 
made out for modifying a decree or not – High Court disturbed a 
finding of fact, leading to modifying the decree of the Trial Court in 
the suit without there being an appeal/cross-appeal – Thus, to this 
extent, the findings of the High Court are not tenable. [Para 21]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.50, 60, 73 – Whether the Plaintiff 
established her claim as the daughter of ‘K’ and ‘A’:
Held: 1.1 Plaintiff claimed the status of the only daughter of ‘K’ 
and ‘A’ – Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction u/s.73, referred to 
s.50, and, without testing the credibility, relevancy, admissibility 
and competence of the witnesses, in an abstract way, held that 
the Plaintiff is the daughter of ‘K’ – It further found that the mere 
suggestion to these witnesses does not discredit the evidence 
of PWs 2 and 3 – Trial Court failed to note that the Plaintiff and 
the witnesses, going by their evidence, were withholding the 
documents in their possession, namely, school-leaving records, 
ration card, etc – The perversity in appreciation is evident from 
the improvements in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 on all material 
aspects – Whereas, the High Court accepted the evidence of PWs 
2 and 3 as the witnesses having special means of knowledge of 
the Plaintiff with ‘K’. [Paras 32, 33]
1.2 The appreciation failing to adhere to the standard tests in 
appreciating oral evidence, and abstract findings have been 
recorded on the status of the Plaintiff vis-à-vis ‘K’ – Emphasis is 
on relevant facts admissible in evidence – Assuming the evidence 
is admissible, the same must conform to the triple test – The proof 
of status or relationship need not always necessarily be through 
documentary evidence, but, when oral evidence is the basis on 
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 
3
Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v.  
Syeda Arifa Parveen
which the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.