SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Cal) 206

High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. SEN
MARZINA BIBI - Appellant
Versus
MUSST.ANJUMAN BIBI - Respondent
Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1494 of 1969
Decided On : 06/23/1977

Advocates Appeared:
C.F.Ali, Prabir Kumar Samanta, Rafique Ahmed

In Mahomedan Law, life interests are permissible and can be created by way of transfer of the use of the property and not the corpus.

Headnote:

GIFT - LIFE INTEREST - MAHOMEDAN LAW - SETTLEMENT - CONSTRUCTION - VALIDITY - REVERSION - POSSESSION.

Fact of the Case:

Aduri Bibi settled disputed lands in favor of two ladies, Sm. Sarijan Bibi and Sm. Amena Bibi for their life. The settlement provided that on the death of the Settlees the lands would revert to the estate of the Settlor and to its possession. The Settlement also provided that the Settlers would have no right to transfer or encumber the lands in any manner. On January 9, 1964, Meher Ali, son of Aduri Bibi instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises. It was a suit for declaration of title, for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the settlement created a life estate simplicitor and not gift with a condition so that the Settlees did not get the suit lands absolutely and the defendants did not acquire any interest thereto after the death of the Settlees.

Issues: Whether the settlement created a life estate or an absolute gift.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in Mahomedan Law, life interests are permissible and can be created by way of transfer of the use of the property and not the corpus. The court construed the settlement as creating a life interest in favor of the Settlees and not an absolute gift. The court relied on the Privy Council decisions in Amjad Khan v. Ashraf Khan and Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan v. Sardar Khan v. Sardar Ali Reza Khan, which held that Muslim Law recognizes the creation of limited interests in the usufruct of property.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the application in the alternative was also dismissed.

A. K. SEN, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal from an appellate decree and in the revisional application in the alternative the point that arises for consideration is as to what is the true legal effect of a life interest created by a Deed of Settlement dated March 11, 1944, in favour of two of the Settlees. The two courts below have differed in their views. The trial court held that the settlement amounted to a gift, the stipulation that it would be limited to the life of the Settlees is a condition which derogates from the absoluteness of the gift and such a stipulation being unknown in Mahomedan Law, the gift would prevail though the stipulation is void. The court of appeal below however held to the contrary that there was no bar to the creation of a life estate under the Mahomedan Law so that under the settlement the Settlees got the lands for enjoyment during their lifetime and not beyond that.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the real dispute between the parties and decide the point raised in this appeal it would be necessary to refer to the facts in the background which may be stated shortly as follows.

( 3 ) ONE Aduri Bibi by a registered Deed of Settlement dated March 11, 1944, settled the disputed lands in favour of two ladies, namely, Sm. Sarijan Bibi and Sm. Amena Bibi for their life. The settlement provided that on the death of the Settlees the lands would revert to the estate of the Settlor and to its possession. The Settlement also provided that the Settlers would have no right to transfer or encumber the lands in any manner. In the revisional survey records the lands were recorded in the name of the two Settlees, as foresaid.

( 4 ) ON January 9, 1964, Meher Ali, son of Aduri Bibi instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises. It was a suit for declaration of title, for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff on the death of Amena Bibi and Sarijan Bibi the suit lands reverted to him as the surviving sole heir and legal representative of Aduri Bibi and he possessed the suit lands since such reversion but the defendants who are the daughters of Amena were threatening to disturb his possession on the basis of the record of rights in favour of Amena and Sarijan Bibi. Hence, the suit.

( 5 ) IN contesting the suit the defendants claimed absolute title to the suit property. According to them, under the Settlement from Aduri Bibi Amena and Sarijan acquired absolute title since creation of a life estate is not within the sanction of the Mahomedan Law. The defendants further claimed to be in possession of the suit lands and they denied the plaintiff's title or possession in respect thereof.

( 6 ) THE suit was dismissed by the trial court since the said court upheld the defence contention that under the Settlement Amena and Sarijan acquired absolute interest in the suit lands and, as such, the same could not revert to the Settlor or her heir. As indicated hereinbefore, the learned Judge in the trial court construed the Settlement to be a gift and the stipulation that it would revert to the donor's estate on the death of the Settlees as a condition derogating from the absoluteness of the gift so that the stipulation was void and the gift was absolute.

( 7 ) THE original plaintiff being dead, his heirs and legal representatives preferred an appeal. The learned judge in the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court as to the effect of the Settlement. The learned judge in the court of appeal below held on the other hand that there is no legal bar to creation of a life estate under the Mahomedan Law so that by the Settlement what was provided was that the two Settlees would possess the suit lands till their death and the same would revert to the estate of the Settlor, Aduri Bibi. The Deed of Settlement, therefore, created a life estate simplicitor and not gift with a condition so that the Settlees did not get the suit lands absolutely and the defendants did not acquire any intere










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top