1948     Present: Dias and Gratiaen JJ.

ASSANAR, Appellant, and HAMID, Respondent

S. C. 474-D. C. Batticaloa 287

Muslim law-Contract by minor-Age of discretion-Validity of contract- Burden of proof-Age of Majority Ordinance-Chapter 53-Application-to Muslims-Sections 2 and 3.

A muslim minor on attaining the age of puberty can enter into binding contracts and manage or dispose of his property unless it is found that he still lacks, sufficient understanding for the purpose. The burden of showing this is on the minor. This rule of the Muslim law is not affected by the Age of Majority Ordinance, Chapter 53.

Muttiah Chetty v. Dingiri (1907) 10 N. L. R. 371 followed. Narayanen v. Saree Umma (1920) 21 N. L. R. 439 dissented from.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge, Batticaloa.

F. A. Hayley, K.C., with Peri Sundaram, for the defendant, appellant.

E. B. Wikramanayake, K.C., with G. Thomas, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 25, 1948. GRATIAEN J.-

The plaintiff is a Muslim. He was born on January 1, 1924. When he was twelve years old his father, by a deed P1 of October 13, 1936, "gifted to him the land which is the subject-matter of this action. The donation was accepted on his behalf by his mother Pathumma. Three years later the father died. In February, 1942, the plaintiff's elder brother Abdul Salam applied to the defendant for a loan of Rs. 1,000 to meet certain expenses in connection with a testamentary action in which he was protecting the plaintiff's interests. On February 15, 1942, the loan was granted on the security of a mortgage over the property which had been gifted to the plaintiff by the deed P1. The mortgage bond (marked P2) was executed in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff and also by his mother and his, brother. The plaintiff was at the relevant date a little over 18 years old. A month later, in February, 1942, the plaintiff married and left his mother's home to live with his bride. On November 14, 1942, a few weeks before his nineteenth birthday, the plaintiff sold the property outright to the defendant for an agreed consideration of Rs. 3,000 which from a commercial point of view is not alleged to have been inadequate. Pathumma and Abdul Salam joined as grantors in this conveyance (P3) as well. The consideration consisted of a cash payment of Rs. 2,000 and the cancellation of the debt created by the execution of bond P2. The parties are not agreed as to which of the brothers actually received the cash from the hands of the notary who attested the deed. The notary is now dead. The defendant asserts that the money was paid to the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff

on the other hand protested that it was paid to his brother Abdul Salam but in his presence. There is no substantial disagreement between the parties on any other material question of fact.

Since November 14, 1942, the defendant having paid what was admittedly a fair price" for the property in dispute, remained in possession as abso