1. Gift of property to a minor grandson accepted by the mother while the father was alive — Challenge to validity under Mohammedan Law. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1096
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
GULAMHUSSAIN KUTUBUDDIN MANER
Vs.
Abdulrashid Abdulrajak Maner
Decided on July 19, 2000
Under Mohammedan Law, a mother cannot act as a guardian of her minor son to accept a gift on his behalf when the father is alive.
Headnote:
Guardianship - Mohammedan Law - Gift - Act Section List: Mohammedan Law, Valia Peedikakkandi Kutheessa Umma and Ors. v. Pathakkalan Naravanath Kumhamu and Ors. [1964 (4) SCR 549], Musa Miya Walad Mahammad Shaffi and Anr. v. Kadar Bax Walad Khaj Bax and Anr. [AIR 1928 Privy Council p. 108], Suna Mia v. S. A. S. Pillai [1932 11 Rang. 109], Musa Miya and Anr. v. Kadar Bax [ILR 52 Bom. 316 P. C] - Summary: The court discussed the applicability of Mohammedan Law in the context of guardianship and gift, emphasizing the requirement of compliance with three key ingredients for a gift to be completed. It cited relevant case law to establish that under Mohammedan Law, a mother cannot act as a guardian of her minor son to accept a gift on his behalf when the father is alive. The court also clarified the circumstances under which a husband can appoint his wife as his agent to act as a guardian of his minor son, emphasizing the need for evidence and pleading in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for Letter of Administration of the estate of the donor and for possession, challenging a gift deed executed by the donor in favor of his minor grandson. The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court set aside the decree, leading to the appeal before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that under Mohammedan Law, a mother cannot act as a guardian of her minor son to accept a gift on his behalf when the father is alive. It also held that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for Letter of Administration was maintainable.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the gift deed under Mohammedan Law, the applicability of the decision in Valia Peedikakkandi Kutheessa Umma case, and the maintainability of the suit for Letter of Administration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established the legal principle that under Mohammedan Law, a mother cannot act as a guardian of her minor son to accept a gift on his behalf when the father is alive. It also emphasized the need for evidence and pleading in cases where a husband appoints his wife as his agent to act as a guardian of his minor son.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order under appeal were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a mother can act as a guardian to accept a gift for a minor son during the father's lifetime or act as the father's agent. (Para 1 , 5 )
3. The court found the father's existence precludes the mother's guardianship for gift acceptance and that agency cannot be inferred without specific pleadings or evidence. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Under Mohammedan Law, a mother cannot be appointed as a guardian to accept a gift on behalf of a minor son during the lifetime of the father. (Para 2 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial court decree restored. (Para 7 )
6. Can a mother act as a guardian to accept a gift for her minor son if the father is alive?
No. Under Mohammedan Law, where the father of a minor is alive and competent, the mother cannot be appointed as a guardian to accept a gift on the minor's behalf. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. Under what circumstances can a mother act as a guardian to accept a gift for a minor child under Mohammedan Law?
A mother or other relative may be appointed as a guardian to accept a gift for a minor's benefit if the father or grandfather of the minor are not alive. (Para 3 , 4 )
8. Can a court infer agency for the acceptance of a gift without specific pleadings or evidence?
No. A court cannot hold that a person acted as an agent for another in accepting a gift if such agency was neither pleaded in the written statement nor supported by evidence. (Para 5 )
9. Is a suit for Letter of Administration maintainable if the trial court deals only with the property in dispute?
Yes, provided the relief prayed for in the plaint includes the estate of the deceased; the suit is maintainable even if the court focuses on the disputed property. (Para 6 )
( 1 ) KUTUBUDDIN Maner (hereinafter referred to as donor) owned property no. 1629 situate within the municipal limits of Ward No. 7 of Kohlapur town. The donor died on 19. 12. 1972 leaving behind four sons including the plaintiff-appellant and defendant no. 2, two daughters and his wife as his heirs. The donor before his death, executed a registered gift deed dated 3. 6. 1972 in favour of his minor grandson, defendant no. 7. The minor grandson was the son of donors eldest son who is defendant no. 2. Smt. Meher Nigarabi, wife of defendant no. 2, was appointed as a guardian of minor donee and she, on behalf of the minor donee, accepted the gift Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellant who is one of the sons of the donor, filed a suit for Letter of Administration of the estate of donor and also for possession. The gift deed executed by the donor was challenged on the ground that, under the Mohammedan Law, the mother is not competent to act as a guardian of her minor son during the lifetime of minors father or grandfather. The trial court accepted the case of the plaintiff-appellant and decreed the suit. The decree of the trial court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. However, in second appeal, the High Court took the view that, since mother has accepted the gift as an agent of her husband, the gift deed was valid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and decree of the trial court was set aside. It is against the said judgment of the High Court the plaintiff-appellant is in appeal before us.
( 2 ) WE have heard Counsel for the parties. On the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties, the first question that arises for our consideration is whether, under Mohammedan Law, a mother can be appointed to act as guardian of her minor son during the lifetime of the minors father So far as this question is concerned, the High Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Valia Peedikakkandi Kutheessa Umma and Ors. v. Pathakkalan Naravanath Kumhamu and Ors. [1964 (4) SCR 549] allowed the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent. We find that the said decision is not applicable to the case of defendant-respondent, whereas, it squarely applies to the case of the plaintiff-appellant. We shall advert to the said decision slightly later. Under Mohammedan Law, gift is a donation conferring right of property without exchange. The gift is in the nature of contract where there must be a tender of property, acceptance of the property by the donee and delivery of possession of the property. It is only when these three ingredients are satisfied, a gift is completed. The object behind the compliance of three ingredients is that, there may not be any future dispute in respect of the property that is gifted to the donee. In the present case, it is not disputed that the father of a minor was alive at the time of execution of the gift. The question, that arises is whether, during the lifetime of father, can a mother be appointed as guardian of her minor son and accept the gift on his behalf. In Musa Miya Walad Mahammad Shaffi and Anr. v. Kadar Bax Walad Khaj Bax and Anr. [air 1928 Privy Council p. 108] it was held that the gift by the grandfather to his minor grandson when the father was alive without delivery of possession was invalid. In Suna Mia v. S. A. S. Pillai [1932 11 Rang. 109] a gift to minor through the mother was considered invalid. In Musa Miya and Anr. v. Kadar Bax [ilr 52 Bom. 316 P. C] it was held that a gift by a grandfather to his minor grandson when the father was alive, without delivery of possession to the father was invalid. The Supreme Court in the case of Valia Peedikakkandi Kutheessa Umma (supra), after considering the said decisions held, thus:
"both these cases involve gifts in favour of minors whose fathers were alive and competent. They are distinguishable from those cases in which there is no guardian of the property to accept the gift and the minor is within the care either of the mother or of other near relative
