Requirement as to acceptance of gift.

This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the estate of one Haji Mohammed Azamathulla Badsha Sahib who died on 4th January 1955 at Madras leaving several heirs and considerable movable and immovable properties at Madras and in Arcot, North Arcot district. The plaintiff is one of the daughters of the deceased by his second wife Habeebunnissa Begum whom he had divorced in 1948. The first defendant is another daughter by this divorced wife and defendants 2 and 3 are sons of the deceased by her. The fourth defendant in the suit is a daughter of the deceased by his first wife who died some where in 1938 and defendants 9 to 11 are the daughters of the fourth defendant and minors. The fifth defendant is the third wife of the deceased and the sixth defendant is the minor daughter by the third wife. Defendants 7 and 8 are the fourth and fifth wives of the deceased and they have no issue. The dispute in the appeal relates to: (1) interests shown as owned by the sixth defendant Gulzar in Gulzar & Company Arcot, valued at about Rs. 15,000, (2) amounts credited in favour of defendants 9 to 11 in the said firm totalling about Rs. 7,000 and (3) a sum of about Rs. 16,000 cash, found in the iron safe at No. 40, Mahmood Shah Bazaar, Arcot, when an inventory was taken on nth January, 1955. The said house at Arcot with the movable properties therein, valued at Rs. 2,000 had been gifted by the deceased to the minor Gulzar by a registered gift deed Exhibit B-1,on 29th March, 1951. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the amounts and investment in Gulzar & Company in the name of the sixth defendant and minor defendants 9 to 11 really belonged to the estate of the deceased, that there are mere book entries made benami, and that the amounts are available for division among the legal heirs of the deceased. On behalf of the sixth defendant and defendants 9 to 11 contra, it is contended that these entries represent completed gifts duly accepted on behalf of the minors and that the said amounts belong to the respective parties and cannot be brought into the general pool for division among the heirs of the deceased. The learned Assistant City Civil Judge rejected the plaintiff’s contentions, holding that there was inherent evidence in the book entries relating to the amounts that Azamathulla relinquished his control over the moneys and divested himself completely of his beneficial interest therein and there was evidence of acceptance of the gift on behalf of the donees. As regards the acceptance of the gift on behalf of the donees, there was no difficulty so far as minor Gulzar was concerned, because the donor was her father. In regard to minor defendants 9 to 11, they had their father and the learned Judge founded the validity of the gift holding that there was acceptance of the gift by Azamathulla as the de facto guardian of the minors without opposition from the father of the minors who was the legal guardian. The learned City Civil Judge, also upheld the contention of the sixth defendant that cash of Rs. 16,000 found in the iron safe had alto been gifted by the deceased to Gulzan

We shall first take up for consideration the credits in favour of minor Gulzar and minor defendants 9 to 11 in the firm of Gulzar & Company. The credits in Gulzar & Company, have come on transfer from the tannery business which Azamathulla had been carrying on. It is seen from the records that the deceased first set apart amounts in favour of his there grand daughters that is defendant 9 to 11, and Gulzar on the 31st of March, 1949, Rs. 2,000 for each of the three grands daughters and Rs. 5,000 for his minor daughter, Gulzan Exhibit B-3 is the daybook of the tannery business for the year 1948-49. The entries have been made by Azamathulla himself, the deceased debiting himself a sum of Rs. 11,000 in all and crediting his daughter and the grand-daughters as aforesaid. The credits are found carried forward in the accounts of the tannery business in the su