Case: Katheesa Umma &amp; Others Vs. Kunhamu &amp; Others

2. It has been, held by the High Court and the courts below that in Muhammadan Law such a gift is invalid. The facts leading up to this question may now be stated3. One Mammotty was married to Seinaba and he made a gift of his properties including immovable property to Seinaba on April 7, 1944 by a registered deed. Mammotty died on May 3, 1946 without an issue. Seinaba also died soon afterwards on February 25, 1947, without leaving an issue. At the time of the gift, Seinaba was 15 years 9 months old. It appears that Mammotty was ill for a long time and was in hospital and he was discharged uncured a month before the execution of the gift deed and remained in his mother inlaws house afterwards. There are conflicting versions about the nature of the disease and a plea was taken in the case that the gift was made in contemplation of death and was voidable. This plea need not detain us because the trial Judge and the first Appellate Judge did not accept it4. After the death of Seinaba, the present suit was brought by Kunhamu an elder brother of Mammotty for partition and possession of a 6/16 share of the property which he claimed as an heir under the Muhammadan Law, challenging the gift as invalid. To this suit he joined his two sisters as defendants who he submitted were entitled to a 3/16 share each. He also submitted that the first three defendants (the appellants) were entitled to the remaining 4/16 share as heirs of Seinaba. In other words, Kunhamus contention was that when succession opened out on the death of Mammotty, his widow Seinaba was entitled to the enhanced share of 1/4 as there was no issue, and the remaining 3/4 was divisible between Kunhamu and his two sisters, Kunhamu getting twice as much as each sister. These shares according to him were unaffected by the invalid gift in favour of Seinaba and accepted on her behalf by her mother. This contention has been accepted and it has been held in this case in all the three courts that a gift by the husband to her minor wife to be valid must be accepted on her behalf by a legal guardian of her property under the Muhammadan Law, that is to say, by the father or his executor or by the grandfather and his executor. As Katheesumma the mother of Seinaba was not a legal guardian of the property of Seinaba it was contended by the plaintiff that the gift was void. It was admitted on behalf of the plaintiff that Mammotty could have himself taken over possession of the property as the guardian of his minor wife; but it was submitted that such was not the gift actually made. These contentions raise the question which we have set out earlier in this Judgment.

Court's reasoning:
7. In the present case there is a declaration and a tender by the donor Mammotty and as the gift is by a registered deed no question in this behalf can arise. In so far as Mammotty was concerned there was delivery of possession and the deed also records this fact. Possession was not delivered to Seinaba but to her mother, the first appellant, and she accepted the gift on behalf of Seinaba. Mammotty could have made a declaration of gift and taken possession on behalf of his wife who had attained puberty and had lived with him, for after the celebration of marriage a husband can receive a gift in respect of minor wife even though her father be living:, Vol. III, p. 104 andi Vol. V, pp., original text quoted at p. 445 of Institutes of Mussalman Law by Nawab Abdur Rehman). But Mammotty did not complete his gift in this way. His gift included immovable properties and it was accepted by the mother who took over possession on behalf of her minor daughter. A gift to a minor is completed ordinarily by the acceptance of the guardian of the property of the minor. A mother can exercise guardianship of the person of a minor daughter (Hizanat) till the girl attains puberty after which the guardianship of the person is that of the father if the girl is unmarried and that of the husband if she is married and has gone to her husband. Even under the Guardian and Wards Act, the husband is the guardian of the person after marriage of a girl unless he is considered unfit. The mother was thus not the guardian of the person of Seinaba8. Seinabas mother was also not a guardian of the property of Seinaba. Muhammadan Law makes a distinction between guardian of the person, guardian of the property and guardian for the purpose of marriage) in the case of minor females. Guardians of the property are father and grandfather but they include also executors (Wasi). of these two and even executors of the executors and finally the Kazis executor. None of these were in existence except perhaps the Civil Court which has taken the place of the KaziThe parties are Hanafis. No direct instance from the authoritative books on Hanafi law can be cited but there is no text prohibiting the giving of possession to the mother. On the other hand there are other instances from which a deduction by analogy (Raifi 7 ciyas) can be made. The Hanafi laws as given in the Kafaya recognises the legality of Certain gifts which custom (urf) has accepted. This is because in deciding questions which are not covered by precedent, Hanafi jurisprudence attaches importance to decisions based on istehsan (liberal construction; lit. producing symmetry) and istislah (public policy). The Prophet himself approved of Muizz (a Governor of a province who was newly appointed) who said that in the absence of guidance from the Koran and Hadis he would deduce a rule by the exercise of reason. But to be able to say that a new rule exists and has always existed, there should be no rule against it and it must flow naturally from other established rules and must be based on justice, equity and good conscience and should not be haram (forbidden) or Makruh (reprobated). It is on these principles that the Mujtahidis and Muftis have allowed certain gifts to stand even though possession of the property was not handed over to one of the stated guardians of the property of the minor.15. These cases show that the strict rule of Muhammadan Law about giving possession to one of the stated guardians of the minor is not a condition of its validity in certain cases. One such case is gift by the husband to his wife and another where there is gift to a minor who has no guardian of the property in existence. In such cases the gift through the mother is a valid giftBoth these cases involve gifts in favour of minors whose fathers were alive and competent. They are distinguishable from those cases in which there is no guardian of the property to accept the gift and the minor is within the care either of the mother or of other near relative or even a stranger. In such cases the benefit to the minor and the completion of the gift for his benefit is the sole consideration. As we have shown above there is good authority for these propositions in the ancient and Modern books of Muhammadan Law and in decided cases of undoubted authority16. In our Judgment the gift in the present case was a valid gift. Mammotty was living at the time of the gift in the house of his mother inlaw and was probably a very sick person though not in Marzulmaut. His minor wife who had attained discretion was capable under Muhammadan Law to accept the gift, was living at her mothers house and in her care where the husband was also residing. The intention to make the gift was clear and manifest because it was made by a deed which was registered and handed over by Mammotty to his mother inlaw and accepted by her on behalf of the minor. There can be no question that there was a complete intention to divest ownership on the part of Mammotty and to transfer the property to the donee. If Mammotty had handed over the deed to his wife, the gift would have been complete under Muhatnmadan Law and it seems impossible to hold that by handing over the deed to his mother inlaw, in whose charge his wife was during his illness and afterwards Mammotty did not complete the gift. In our opinion both on texts and authorities such a gift must be accepted as valid and complete.