As per rule where a transaction by way of oral gift/tamleeq is claimed and its existence is disputed by...........

2023 YLR 2619

As per rule where a transaction by way of oral gift/tamleeq is claimed and its existence is disputed by the owner/transferor who states that no such oral gift/tamleeq was made nor was properly transferred by way of such mode, the onus of proof shifts on to the beneficiary who is required in law to prove the oral transaction and also the alleged mutation of tamleeq. The petitioners who were under heavy onus to prove the stance did not disclose these mandatory particulars in the written statements viz. date, time and place of oral gift/tamleeeq and also the persons in whose presence such oral tamleeq was made nor took the trouble to produce any witnesses of such oral transaction and also the attestation of mutation. Even the persons who allegedly identified the donor before the revenue officer did not appear in the witness-box nor transfer of possession could be proved which was a constitutive element of valid gift. Claim of oral tamleeq in such circumstances even otherwise was unnatural/unusual on the face of it inasmuch as the stance was that respondent No.1 had allegedly transferred her inherited property as well as the self-acquired property by purchase from her siblings to her late husband despite the fact that she had her own children. Be that as it may, oral tamleeq could not be proved by any admissible evidence.