Back
1958 Supreme(AP) 56
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.A.ANSARI,JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Shaik Mastan Bi
Versus
Shaik Bikari Sahab
Appeal No. 473 of 1953 against decree of Sub. J., Guntur
Decided On : 20-03-1958
M.S. Ramchandra Rao and M. Krishna Rao for Appellants; Advocate General (D. Narasaraju) and Y. Suryanarayana for Respondents.
Under the Hanafi School of Sunni Mohammedan Law, the creation of a life estate by gift is not valid, but a gift of the usufruct for life, known as ariat, is permissible. Reservations made by the donor in a gift deed, which do not derogate from the absolute ownership conveyed to the donee, are valid and effective.
Headnote:
HIBA - SUNNI MOHAMMEDAN LAW - HANAFI SCHOOL - CREATION OF LIFE ESTATE - VALIDITY - ARIAT RIGHTS - DISTINCTION - OWNERSHIP AND ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY - SEPARATION - GIFT OF USUFRUCT FOR LIFE - VALIDITY - RESERVATION OF USUFRUCT BY DONOR - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS FOR VALID GIFT - APPLICATION TO ARIAT RIGHTS - INTERPRETATION OF GIFT DEEDS - INTENTION OF DONOR - CONVEYANCE OF OWNERSHIP WITH RESERVATION OF USUFRUCT - VALIDITY - REVOCATION OF ARIAT RIGHTS - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Mastan Bi, a Sunni Mohammedan belonging to the Hanafi School, executed two gift deeds (Exs. B-1 and B-2) on the same day, granting Acs. 5-50 cents and Ac. 3-07 cents, respectively, out of the property she received from her brother under Ex. A-1, to her nephew, Bikari Saheb, and her niece, Jan Bi, respectively. The gift deeds provided that Mastan Bi would retain possession of the properties and enjoy the produce thereof during her lifetime, and after her death, the donees and their heirs would take possession and enjoy the properties with absolute powers of disposition. Mastan Bi also executed a handletter (Ex. B-3) on the same day, stating that if she were to live apart from the donees, she would forfeit her right to enjoy the usufruct of the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the gift deeds (Exs. B-1 and B-2) were valid and conveyed immediate ownership of the properties to the donees, while Mastan Bi reserved only the usufruct rights for herself during her lifetime. The court found that the reservations in favor of the donor were in the nature of ariat rights, which are permissible under Hanafi Mohammedan Law and can be revoked by the donor.
Issues: 1. Whether the creation of a life estate by gift is valid under the Hanafi School of Sunni Mohammedan Law? 2. Whether the reservations made by Mastan Bi in the gift deeds (Exs. B-1 and B-2) were valid and effective? 3. Whether the handletter (Ex. B-3) executed by Mastan Bi was valid and enforceable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the creation of a life estate by gift is not valid under the Hanafi School of Sunni Mohammedan Law, as it is inconsistent with the concept of absolute ownership and dominion over property. However, the court recognized that the separation of ownership and enjoyment of property is permissible under Hanafi Law, and therefore, a gift of the usufruct for life, known as ariat, is valid. 2. The court found that the reservations made by Mastan Bi in the gift deeds (Exs. B-1 and B-2) were valid and effective, as they did not derogate from the absolute ownership conveyed to the donees. The court held that Mastan Bi retained only the ariat rights, or the right to enjoy the produce of the properties, during her lifetime, and that such rights could be revoked by her. 3. The court held that the handletter (Ex. B-3) executed by Mastan Bi was valid and enforceable, as it merely stated the conditions under which the ariat rights reserved by Mastan Bi would continue.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the gift deeds (Exs. B-1 and B-2) and the handletter (Ex. B-3), and directed that the parties bear their own costs throughout the proceedings.
M. A. ANSARI, J. : -
This appeal arises from a decree of the Subordinate Judge. Guntur, whereby the appellants suit for the establishment of their rights to possession of the plaint schedule properties has been dismissed, but without costs. The following pedigree would show the relation between the first appellant since deceased and the respondents :
2. Syed Hussain Saheb had apparently belonged to the Hanafi Sect of Sunni Mohammedans and is stated to have owned the properties in dispute. Merra Bi one of the two daughters had died before her father and Bikari Saheb, her son, would not therefore be entitled to any share in his grand-fathers properties. Syed Hussains heirs would be his two surviving children and the sons share in whatever properties he left would be twice to what the daughter would get.
After the fathers death, the heirs had not divided the inheritance, which had remained with the brother. In 1947 certain arrangement took place between the brother and the sister. By Ex. A-1 which was executed by the brother and is dated July 9, 1947 Mastan Bi was given Acs. 8-57 cents of land in Nandigama. The document recites that about 8 months prior to its execution Mastan Bis husband had died, she had no issue, and she intended to live with her sisters son to improve him and to spend her last days with him by rendering service to him.
It then states that in accordance with the decision of mediators the executant had put her on the date the deed was executed in possession of 8 acres and 57 cents in Nandigama, being the property acquired by the father, in satisfaction of her share and this she should enjoy with absolute right. On the same day the sister had executed Ex. A-2 which is the relinquishment deed in favour of the brother as regards her 1/3 share in the family properties. This document recites that Mastan Bi was living with the brother and was being maintained by him, that she had demanded her share under the Mohammedan Law, that her brother had consented to abide by the decision of mediators and had accordingly executed a gift deed in her favour. Both these documents are not in dispute.
3. The controversy between the parties is concerning the legality of the next two documents, which Mastan Bi had executed on 9-7-1947. One of the aforesaid documents is Ex. B-1 which is in favour of Bikari Saheb, granting him Acs. 5-50 cents out of the property covered by Ex. A-1. The other is Ex. B-2 whereby she has gifted the remaining Ac. 3-07 cents of what she got under Ex. A-1 in favour of Jan Bi, her niece, who had married the nephew.
The appellants case is that the vested remainders thereby created in favour of the donees are void under the personal law of the parties. As the contents of the two documents are important, we would give relevant extracts from them. Ex. B-1 recites that Mastan Bi had begun to live with Bikari Saheb, who was maintaining her since the death of her husband about 8 months prior to the execution of the document, and in expectation that he would continue to maintain her she has conferred upon him with immediate effect the aforesaid Acs. 5-50 cents. The document then reads as follows :
"I have, on account of my affection for you, conveyed to you under Dakhal the hereunder schedule mentioned immovable property of the value of Rs. 700 (Rupees Seven Hundred) belonging to me and created rights to you in the property now itself. I shall retain the property covered by Dakhal in my possession and enjoy the produce thereof till my life-time. After my life-time, you and your heirs shall take possession of the schedule-mentioned property and enjoy the same from your son to grand-son and so on in succession with absolute powers of disposition by way of gift and sale, in which case I and my heirs shall not raise any dispute whatever at any time with you and your heirs."
4. The document in favour of the niece is in similar terms. It also recites that since her husband died, the executant had been residing in the
