Razeeka Et Al. V. Mohamed Sathuck

1931 Present: Macdonell C.J. and Garvin S.P.J.

RAZEEKA et al. v. MOHAMED SATHUCK.

10-D. C. Colombo, 35,823.

Muslim law-Gift by mother and grandmother to minor children-Possession by mother-Right to revoke-Acceptance unnecessary.

Where the mother and grandmother of minor children, subject to Muslim law, gifted certain property to the minors, and the mother collected the rents on their behalf,-

Held, that the gift was a valid one under Muslim law and that no acceptance was necessary to complete it.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo.

A. E. Keuneman, for third defendant, appellant.

Nadarajah (with him Abeyesekera), for plaintiffs, respondents.

November 18, 1931. MACDONELL C.J.-

The facts in this case so far as material are as follows: -Mohamed Zain died on January 9, 1925, in possession of an undivided half share of the premises No. 43, Main Street, Colombo. He left him surviving his mother Saffra Umma, his wife Fatheela, and five minor children who are the first to fifth plaintiffs in this action. He died intestate an3 his widow Fatheela administered his estate under letters granted her in testamentary suit 2,714. Thereafter by notarial deed No. 685 of October 21, 1927, she, as administratrix, conveyed her deceased husband's half share of the above-mentioned premises to herself, to the deceased's mother Saffra Umma, and to her own minor children, the first to fifth plaintiffs aforesaid, for the share to which each was respectively entitled. The administratrix, therefore, had in her capacity as such divested herself of her rights as such and had conveyed to the beneficiaries entitled under the intestacy of her late husband. On the same day, namely, October 21, 1927, the same Fatheela joined with Saffra Umma in conveying by notarial deed No. 687 all their right, title, and interest in their shares in the said premises as a gift " absolute and irrevocable " to Fatheela's five minor children, being plaintiffs one to five in this action. The five minor children therefore by this deed of gift No. 687, if a valid one, became owners of the shares that had previously belonged to their

mother Fatheela and their grandmother Saffra Umma. The deed itself was handed to the notary executing for registration, and was duly registered. Thereafter, the grandmother Saffra Umma by notarial deed No. 1,485 of February 4, 1928, purported to revoke her deed of gift No. 687 of October 21, 1927, to her five minor grandchildren and by the same deed No. 1,485 to give to her son Mohamed Sathuck, the added defendant-appellant in this case, her own undivided share of the said premises. This deed No. 1,485 was also registered. Thereafter the Additional defendant-appellant got deed No. 687 from the possession of the notary, alleging that he intended to give it to Fatheela, and it was from his custody that it was produced in this case. Instead of handing it to Fatheela, he kept it by him until Saffra Umma had executed deed No. 1,485 purporting to revoke it. There was sufficient evidence that Fatheela after the execution of deed No. 687 was colleting the rents of the property on behalf of the five minor plaintiffs, her children. They, by their next friend, brought this action for partition and sale of the premises in question, and the learned District Judge gave judgment in their favour, holding that Saffra Umma had no power to revoke the gift by her under deed No. 687 of her share of the premises, and that consequently deed No. 1,485 was of no force. It is from this decree that the present appeal is brought. The parties to these deeds are Muslims and the validity or otherwise of these deeds must be tested by Muhammedan law. Muhammedan law in the Island requires three conditions as to gifts: " Manifestation of the wish to give on the part of the donor; the acceptance of the donee either impliedly or expressedly, and the taking possession of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document