Supreme Court Validates Gift of Undivided Property in Muslim Law: Khursida Begum vs. Mohammad Farooq (2016)

Can a gift of an undivided share of property be valid under Muslim Law? This was the core question before the Supreme Court of India in the case of Khursida Begum (D) By Lrs. & Ors. vs. Mohammad Farooq (D) By Lrs. & Anr. The court examined the validity of a gift deed concerning a one-third share of a property, which was challenged as an invalid gift of an undivided share. The Supreme Court, in this civil appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts and upheld the validity of the gift.

Citation: 2016 INSC 60

Judges: Anil R. Dave, J., Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

The judgment was authored by Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute. The plaintiff, Rafiuddin, claimed a one-third share of a property based on a gift deed executed by his father, Hazi Azimuddin, on February 24, 1976. Hazi Azimuddin was the original owner of the property. However, the sale deed recorded the names of his other sons, the defendants, as owners of two-thirds of the property.

The plaintiff contended that his father gifted him his one-third share through a registered deed. He also informed the tenants of the property about the gift. The plaintiff was supposed to receive one-third of the rent, which was a total of Rs. 50 per month. However, from January 1, 1977, the defendants started collecting the entire rent and did not pay the plaintiff his share. Consequently, the plaintiff sued to recover his share of the rent.

The defendants contested the suit, arguing that the gift deed was invalid. They claimed that Hazi Azimuddin was 95 years old and not in a fit state of health to execute the deed. They also claimed that there was a prior oral family arrangement where they became the exclusive owners of the property.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed the suit. It acknowledged that no family arrangement had taken place as claimed by the defendants. The court also found that Hazi Azimuddin received the rent until his death. The gift deed was deemed to be genuinely executed. However, the trial court held that the gift of the undivided property was invalid. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was never given actual or symbolic possession of the one-third share. The court also held the gift to be invalid under the principle of hiba-bil-musha. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal issue revolves around the validity of a gift under Muslim Law, specifically the concept of hiba-bil-musha. According to Section 206 of Muslim Law, a gift of an undivided share in property capable of division is invalid, with certain exceptions.

The exceptions to this rule include:

• Where the gift is made by one co-sharer to another.
• Where the property allows for definite ascertainment of shares and separate enjoyment without division.
• Where the gift is made to a minor under the custody of the donor.
• Where the property is freehold property in a large commercial town.

The court also considered the requirements for the delivery of possession in a gift of immovable property. According to Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, the gift is not complete unless the donor physically departs from the premises, and the donee takes possession. However, if the property is occupied by tenants, the gift can be completed by requesting the tenants to attorn to the donee, by delivering the title deed, or by mutation in the revenue register.

Additionally, Section 160 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law states that a gift of an undivided share (mushaa) in property capable of division is irregular (fasid) but not void (batil). Such a gift can be perfected by subsequent partition and delivery of the share to the donee.

Arguments

The appellants argued that since the gift was made in favor of a minor, the requirement of transfer of possession was not necessary. They also argued that the property was under tenancy. Therefore, the execution of the gift deed itself amounted to transfer of constructive possession. The appellants further contended that the gift could not be declared invalid on the ground that it related to an undivided share of divisible property. They stated that this was not even a plea in the written statement. They also submitted that the property is a freehold property in a large commercial town. Therefore, it falls under an exception to the rule of hiba-bil-musha.

The respondents supported the judgments of the lower courts. They argued that the gift was invalid because it was a gift of an undivided share of a divisible property. They also argued that the property was not in a large commercial town.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the gift deed dated 24th February, 1976, executed by Hazi Azimuddin in favor of the plaintiff, Rafiuddin, is valid under Muslim Law.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

• Mulla Principles of Mohammedan Law, 20th Edition by Lexis Nexis: The court referred to paragraphs 152 and 160, which discuss the delivery of possession of immovable property and the gift of mushaa where the property is divisible.
• Mohammedan Law by B.R. Verma, Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd, 13th Edition: The court noted that this book was also referred to by the lower courts and was similar in effect to Mulla’s book.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts. The court held that the gift deed was valid.

The court considered the following authorities:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The property was located in Jaipur, which is a large commercial town. This fact was apparent from the description of the property in the plaint and the gift deed.
• The gift was made by a father to his minor son.
• The property was under tenancy, and the right to collect rent had been assigned to the plaintiff.
• The gift deed was registered.

The court’s reasoning was based on the specific facts of the case and the application of the exceptions to the rule of hiba-bil-musha. The court emphasized that the property was in a large commercial town and that the right to collect rent was transferred to the donee.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered the argument that the gift was invalid because it was a gift of an undivided share of a divisible property. However, the court found that the exception to this rule, which applies to property in a large commercial town, was applicable in this case. The court also considered the argument that possession was not delivered to the donee. However, the court found that the transfer of the right to collect rent was sufficient to constitute delivery of possession.

The court stated: “The courts below are not justified in not giving effect to the gift which has been held to be genuine.”

The court also noted: “The gift had no infirmity under the Muslim Law either on the ground that the possession was not delivered or on the ground that the gift was hit by Hiba-bil-Musha.”

Finally, the court observed: “The gift was by father to his minor son. Property is under tenancy. The gift is by a registered deed. Right to collect rent stands transferred to donee.”

Key Takeaways

• A gift of an undivided share of property in a large commercial town is valid under Muslim Law.
• Transfer of the right to collect rent can be considered sufficient delivery of possession in cases where the property is under tenancy.
• The courts should consider the specific facts of each case and the exceptions to the rule of hiba-bil-musha.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and decreed the suit in favor of the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a gift of an undivided share of property in a large commercial town is valid under Muslim Law. This case clarifies the exceptions to the rule of hiba-bil-musha and provides guidance on the requirements for delivery of possession in cases where the property is under tenancy. The Supreme Court did not introduce any new legal principles, but it clarified and applied existing principles of Muslim Law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the gift deed in favor of the plaintiff was valid. The court found that the property was located in a large commercial town, which is an exception to the rule of hiba-bil-musha. The court also held that the transfer of the right to collect rent was sufficient to constitute delivery of possession. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts.