Back
1931 Supreme(SC) 93
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT DUNEDIN, SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON, AND SIR GEORGE LOWNDES.
MOHAMMAD EJAZ HUSAIN - Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR HUSAIN (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On appeal from the Chief Court of Oudh.
Decided On : Dec. 15. 1931.
Solicitor for appellants: J. E. Lambert.
Solicitors for respondents: Barrow, Rogers & Nevill.
Under Sunni Mahomedan law, a mother is a custodian of the person, not a legal guardian of the property. She cannot bind minor children to agreements involving immovable property, and such void agreements cannot be validated as "family arrangements" or by subsequent appointment as a legal guardian.
Headnote:(A) Mahomedan Law - Guardianship - Mother’s capacity to deal with minor’s property - Under Sunni law, a mother is entitled only to the custody of the person of her minor child and is not the natural guardian of the property - She has no power to deal with the minor's immovable property or enter into agreements on their behalf that would bind them, unless she is the father's executrix or appointed as a guardian by the court - Any act purporting to deal with the property without such authority is void and cannot impose obligations on the minor. (Paras 20-22)
(B) Family Arrangement - Validity - An agreement to refer disputes to arbitration involving the immovable property of minors, executed by a mother lacking legal guardianship, is null and void - Such a distribution cannot be validated by characterizing it as a family arrangement if the party acting on behalf of the minors was incompetent to contract - The passage of time or the fact that the arrangement was acted upon does not cure the initial lack of capacity. (Paras 17-19)
(C) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 10 - Subsequent appointment of a guardian by the court does not validate an arrangement that was invalid at its inception. (Para 24)
(D) Indian Contract Act - Section 11 - A minor's contract is void, not merely voidable. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The children of a deceased father filed a suit for partition of the estate, including an ice factory. While the children were minors, their mother had entered into an agreement to refer the division of the estate to arbitration. The resulting award allotted the ice factory to one of the brothers. The trial court ruled in favor of the children, but the appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that although the award was not binding, the distribution constituted a binding family arrangement as it had been acted upon for fourteen years.
Findings of Court:
The mother was not the legal guardian of the children's property at the time of the agreement. Under the applicable personal law, she had no authority to refer the children's shares in immovable property to arbitration. Therefore, the agreement and the subsequent award were void.
Issues: Whether a mother, acting as a de facto guardian under Mahomedan law, is competent to refer the immovable property of her minor children to arbitration and whether such a distribution can be binding as a family arrangement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Sunni law, the mother is only a custodian of the person and not a legal guardian of the property. Since she lacked the legal capacity to bind the minors to the arbitration agreement, she could not effectuate a binding family arrangement. Subsequent appointment as a guardian by the court does not retrospectively validate a void transaction. Furthermore, signing a specific decree for a mortgage does not constitute ratification of the entire invalid arrangement.
Result: Appeal allowed; decrees of the appellate court set aside and the decree of the trial court restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
mahomedan law
-
guardianship
- legal guardian
- de facto guardian
-
guardianship
-
mahomedan law
-
property law
-
inheritance
- partition
-
inheritance
-
practice and procedure
-
arbitration
- validity of award
-
arbitration
-
contract law
-
capacity
- minors
-
capacity
Judgement
Appeal (No. 34 of 1930) from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated October 18, 1928, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow dated January 7, 1928, as amended by an order of March 8, 1928.
The suit was brought on October 20, 1927, by the appellants, the son and daughter of Mohammad Husain, who died on March 4, 1912, against other members of the family, including Faiyaz-un-nisa, their mother, the second wife of the deceased. The plaintiffs claimed their share according to
Law. Rep. 59 Ind. App. 92 ( 1931- 1932) Mohammad Ejaz Husain V. Mohammad Iftikhar Husain
285
MAHOMEDAN LAW in scheduled properties which they alleged constituted the estate of their deceased father. They contended that they were not bound by an award made on April 2, 1912, upon a reference to arbitration under an agreement made on their behalf when minors by their mother Faiyaz-un-nisa.
The facts appear fully from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Chief Court, reversing the Subordinate Judge, dismissed the suit. The learned judges (G. N. Misra and Srivastava JJ.) were of opinion that the award was not binding upon the plaintiffs as an award, but that as it had been fairly and properly made, and had been acted upon by all the family for fourteen years, the distribution so made constituted a family arrangement binding upon all parties.
1931. Nov. 13, 16. E. B. Raikes K.C. and Pennell for the appellants. There are concurrent findings that the ice factory, the item of property now in dispute, was not a gift inter vivos to defendant No. 4 as the award stated. Having regard to the judgment of the Board in Imambandi v. Mutsaddi (( 1918)
L. R. 45 I. A. 73.) the appellants mother was not competent in MAHOMEDAN LAW to agree on their behalf to the reference to arbitration. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mohsiuddin Ahmed v.
K. Ahmed (( 1920) I. L. R. 47 C. 713.) is precisely in point and correct. The Chief Court erred in holding that even if the award was not binding upon the appellants the distribution made under it was binding as a family arrangement. A family arrangement derives its force from contract, express or implied, and the appellants mother was incompetent so to bind them. The cases relied on by the Chief Court were not cases of arrangements made or assented to by a Mahomedan mother on behalf of her minor children, but were either arrangements between members of a Hindu family, like Brijraj Singh v. Sheodan Singh (( 1913) L. R. 40 I. A. 161.), or cases of compromise by a Hindu woman in whom the estate was vested, like Ramsumran Prasad v. Shy am Kumari .(( 1922) L. R. 49 I. A. 342.) The fact that the mother was appointed guardian after the award was carried out did not validate the transaction in the absence of evidence that the Court knew of the agreement and approved it, nor could it confer on her power to assent to an invalid arrangement which had already been made. It was not proved that the first appellant ratified the distribution with knowledge of his rights.
Hyam and Pringle for the respondents, the heirs of defendant No.4. Even if the agreement to refer was invalid the distribution under the award, which was made fairly and without undue influence, and has been acted on without question for fourteen years, was binding upon all parties. The principle upon which a family arrangement made in settlement of disputes is binding upon the whole family is independent of the capacity of the parties to it provided that it is a bona fide arrangement Upendra Nath Bose v. Bindeshri Prosad (( 1915) 20 Cal. W. N. 210, 229(F. B.).); Keramatulla Meah v. Keramatulla Meah (( 1918) 23 Cal. W. N. 118.) ; Hasan Bibi v. Fazal Kadir .(( 1908) 10 Punjab L. R, 537.) That view accords with the judgment of the Board in Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain (( 1911) L. R. 38 I. A. 87.) holding that an arrangement of this nature does not operate as a transfer of the property dealt with. The mother was appointed guardian in Septemb
