Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

42. In Para 164 of Mulla's Principle of Mohammedan Law, it has been stated that :

When a gift is made subject to a condition which derogates from the completeness of the grant, the condition is void, and the gift will take effect as if no conditions were attached to it.
In Para 163, it has been stated that :
A gift cannot be made to take effect on the happening of a contingency.

43. It will be illuminating to refer in same detail how Syed Ameer Ali had dealt with this aspect in his Treatise on Mahommedan Law. It has been stated that there is a great difference between contingent gift and the gifts with conditions attached to them. The former gifts which are made dependent for their operation upon the occurrence of certain contingencies are void according to all the schools. Whilst with regard to gifts with conditions attached to them, there exists a certain divergence between the Shiahs and the Hanafis. According to Hanafi Law, any derogation from the completeness of the gift is null, and if the intention to give to the donee the entire subject-matter of the gift be clear, subsequent conditions derogating from or limiting the extent of the right would be null and void. Accordingly, under the Hanafi Law, whilst the gift is valid, the condition is void. Under the Shiah Law, if the condition is subsidiary to the gift, both the gift and the conditions are valid. In practice, there is no difference whether the gift depends on the condition attached, or whether the condition is only subsidiary. In both cases, both gift and condition are valid.

45. But even under the Hanafi Law, only such conditions are invalid as render the gift nugatory or defeat its very purpose. The illustrations given in the Fatawai Alamgiri, which are in accord with the social conditions of the times, leave no room for doubt as to the meaning of the jurists. All our masters have declared that when a gift is made and an invalid condition is attached, the gift will be valid and the condition will be void.

46. Where the condition imposed on the donee is such as to defeat the whole purpose of the gift, for although the transaction purports to be a complete transfer of the entire thing, the right is so limited that it renders its enjoyment in some cases nugatory, in others only gives the corpus in pArticle And therefore, effect is given to what is supposed to be the primary object, viz., the gift is held to be valid whilst the condition is avoided. This, in substance, is the meaning of the jurists.

An analytical examination of the principles with due regard to the main purpose of the Mussulman Law, shows that where the intention is clear to transfer the entire right of property in the corpus of the gift, a mere reservation of interest in its rents and issues, or any profit accruing therefrom or a subordinate share in its enjoyment does not affect the validity. And this view is not restricted to the case of a minor donee.
As a general rule, it may be stated that, where the intention to make an absolute transfer in presenti of all proprietary right is clear, any condition which derogates from the immediate completeness of the gift is regarded as void. Where the condition, however, may be given effect to without in any way interfering with or detracting from the immediate completeness of the gift, or rather the immediate transfer of the right in the substance of the gift, the condition as well as the gift are valid. If a man were to give absolutely his property to another and place the donee in possession thereof, so far as its nature admits, to use the language of the Majm'aa-ul-Anhar, with the condition that the whole or a portion of the income should be given to him, the donor, or to anybody else during his life time, such a reservation or condition would not prevent the property vesting immediately in the donee.

57. Likewise, condition No. 5 does not militate against the transfer of property in favour of the donees by way of gift by reserving ownership right unto the donor in the said property. The right of residence reserved in favour of the four daughters of the donor, militating against the absolute enjoyment of property vesting in the donees. If the condition is to be held against exercise of right of ownership by the donees, for the benefit of third parties, the condition would be invalid and not the gift. But, a condition on exercise of absolute right of transfer during the minority of any one of co-owners in whom the ownership has vested on gift having taken place, cannot be considered a condition on which gift depends. But is a subsidiary conditions as a clog on right of donees, on property being vested in them.