Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the inheritance of a house owned by Rajubai, who died on 7 June 1975. Jaitunbi, her daughter, instituted a suit for declaration and possession claiming that as a Class I heir under Mahomedan law she was entitled to inherit the whole house to the exclusion of Shamsuddin, the grandson of Rajubai from another daughter Mehamunisa, who was a distant kindred or Class III heir. The trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court and decreed the suit, reasoning that Jaitunbi was the only Class I heir and Shamsuddin a Class III heir, and Class III heirs are wholly excluded when Class I or Class II heirs exist. The High Court dismissed Shamsuddin's second appeal in limine. Shamsuddin appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, Jaitunbi's counsel argued that as the sole Class I heir she was entitled to one-half as her fixed share and, under the doctrine of return, the surplus share would also revert to her because there were no residuaries. The Supreme Court, however, did not find it necessary to decide the inheritance question. Instead, it examined the facts from a different angle. The written statement filed by Shamsuddin before the trial court pleaded that after his mother's death in 1933-34 he was brought up by Rajubai as her son. He further pleaded that about 30 years before the suit Rajubai gave the first floor of the house to Jaitunbi and the ground floor to him, and that they had been residing in their respective portions separately with separate electric connections and water meters. The lower appellate court had noticed these facts. After Rajubai's death, the City Survey Officer by order dated 11 December 1975 entered the names of both appellant and respondent as holders of the property in dispute in respect of the portions under their possession. Jaitunbi's appeal against that order was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kolhapur on 7 July 1980, with the observation that she may get her right under Mahomedan law established in a civil court. The Supreme Court noted that these facts were not controverted by Jaitunbi. It also observed that the appellant's age as stated in his rejoinder was about 56 years, which showed he was born around 1934-35, the precise time his mother died, lending inherent truth to the averment that he was brought up by his maternal grandmother like a son. The Court found that Rajubai had given her property to her daughter and grandson during her lifetime by dividing the house into two parts and giving possession of respective parts. It held that an oral gift is perfectly valid under Mahomedan law, and that the declaration as well as acceptance of the gift may be oral whatever may be the nature of the property gifted. The intention on the part of Rajubai to give the property to the two heirs was obvious from the division of the house and actual possession. The parties had been enjoying the property separately and to the exclusion of each other for over 40 years, and mutation of the property was in their respective names. The Court concluded that to do complete justice between the parties, the intention of Rajubai had to be honoured. Accordingly, it allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, dismissed the suit filed by Jaitunbi, and declared that Shamsuddin and Jaitunbi shall be the owners of the portions of the house in their respective possession. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Mahomedan Law - Inheritance - Classification of Heirs and Doctrine of Return - Mahomedan Law - Lower appellate court held that respondent is Class I heir and appellant Class III heir, with Class III heirs wholly excluded when Class I or Class II heirs exist; respondent's counsel argued doctrine of return applied to give whole property to sole Class I heir, but Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide the inheritance question because case was resolved on grounds of oral gift and possession. Held that it was not necessary to decide the inheritance issue. (Paras 2-3) B) Mahomedan Law - Gift (Hiba) - Oral Gift Validity and Transfer of Possession - Mahomedan Law - Rajubai divided house into two portions and gave actual possession to her daughter and grandson during her lifetime; oral declaration and acceptance of gift are valid under Mahomedan law irrespective of nature of property; separate possession and mutation entries corroborated intention to gift. Held that intention of deceased must be honoured; parties declared owners of respective possession portions. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, as the only Class I heir under Mahomedan law, was entitled to inherit the entire house to the exclusion of the appellant, a Class III heir; and whether the lower courts erred in ignoring the oral gift and separate possession arrangement made by the deceased during her lifetime.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgments and decrees of courts below set aside; suit filed by respondent-plaintiff dismissed; appellant and respondent declared owners of house portions in their respective possession; no costs.
Law Points
- Mahomedan Law
- Class I heirs sharers inherit with Class II heirs residuaries
- Class III heirs distant kindred excluded if Class I or II exist
- doctrine of return
- oral gift hiba valid without writing
- declaration and acceptance may be oral
- possession evidences intention to gift
- complete justice requires honouring intention of deceased
