Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) On December 15, 1952, one Hafiz Abdul Basit instituted a suit for possession by partition, rendition of accounts of the rents and mesne profits and recovery of the amount found due on rendition of accounts. The suit was filed against 13 defendants.

(2) There was a common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8. His name was Hafiz Karim Baksh. He died in the year 1904. One of his sons was Sheikh Abdul Haq who died in 1922 possessed of an undivided 1/6th share in the estate which he held as tenant in common with the other heirs of his father. On his death this undivided share was inherited by his widow Mst. Kulsum-un-Nisa and his son Sheikh Mohd. Daud in moiety of 1/8th and 7/8th respectively. There was another son of Hafiz Karim Baksh, Sheikh Hafiz Abdul Khaliq by name. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 are the sons, daughters and the widow of Hafiz Abdul Khaliq. In 1916, a suit was instituted for partition of the estate of the common ancestor Hafiz Karim Baksh which was decided by the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi on August 26, 1926. A partition decree was passed and under this decree the property detailed in Schedule 1 Column 'A' attached to the plaint fell to share of Kulsum-un-Nisa and Sheikh Mohd. Daud jointly in proportion of one-eighth and seven-eighth share respectively. This property was separately allotted to the widow and the son of Abdul Haq as their exclusive share on partition.

(4) The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was instituted by Hafiz Abdul Basit, one of the sons of Abdul Khaliq, against Kulsum-un-Nisa and Sheikh Mohd. Amil, defendants 12 and 13. To the suit the remaining four sons, four daughters and the widow of Abdul Khaliq were also made party-defendants. The two widows of Sheikh Mohd. Daud were also made parties. The contesting defendants were, however, Kulsum-un-Nisa and Mohd. Amil. The main ground taken by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 was that they were the heirs of Sheikh Mohd. Daud and they were entitled to his share in the property to the extent of seven-eighth. In substance the gifts stated to have been made to Mohd. Amil by Kulsum-un-Nisa and by Sheikh Mohd. Daud to his mother Kuslum-un-Nisa of his seven-eighth share were denied and it was asserted that on the death of Sheikh Mohd. Daud on April 17, 1952, his seven-eighth undivided share in the property devolved on the heirs of Abdul Khaliq and the two widows of Mohd. Daud.

(7) Defendants 1 to 9, namely, the heirs of Abdul Khaliq-his sons, daughters and widow-filed one written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff. Defendants 10 and 11, the widows of Mohd. Daud filed their separate written statement claiming share in the property of Sheikh Mohd. Daud in addition to the dower debt. Kulsum-un-Nisa (defendant No. 12) filed her written statement on January 7, 1953. She pleaded that Mohd. Daud in his life time made an oral gift of his entire share of the property (which was seven-eighth) left by his father in her favor in 1935 and that the possession thereof was also delivered to her. She further stated that she in her turn had made an oral gift of the major portion of the property (namely, property on inheritance she acquired from her husband in which her share was one-eighth and out of the property which she received on gift made by Mohd. Daud in 1943), in favor of Sheikh Mohd. Amil (defendant No. 13) who was brought up by her since his childhood and for whom both, she and her deceased son Mohd. Daud, had great affection. Possession of the property was also delivered to Mohd. Amil. Defendant No. 13, Mohd. Amil, also filed a separate written statement which was on the same lines as the written statement of Kulsum-un-Nisa. He claimed that Sheikh Mohd. Daud gifted the whole of his property in favor of his mother Kulsum-un-Nisa in 1935 and 1943 and got the name of his mother mutated in the Municipal registers and got rent deeds executed by the tenants exclusively in her favor and managed the property as her Mukhtiar. On account of great love and affection which Kulsum-un-Nisa had for Mohd. Amil she (Kulsum-un-Nisa) made a gift of a major portion of her property in his favor in 1943 and gave possession of these properties to him. It was further pleaded that in the year 1946, she executed aregular gift of deed acknowledging the previous gift and gifting other properties to Mohd. Amil. This deed of gift was attested among others by Hafiz Abdul Manan, the husband of defendant No. 6, daughter of Abdul Khaliq and cousin of the original plaintiff Hafiz Abdul Basit and by Sheikh Mohd. Daud, deceased, and Hafiz Zain-ul-Abdin another cousin of the original plaintiff. The sole defense to the suit was that Mohd. Amil was the donee of the entire property of Mohd. Daud and Kulsum-un-Nisa and that neither the heirs of Abdul Khaliq nor the two widows of Mohd. Daud were entitled to any share in the property which had come to Mohd. Amil by reason of the gift in his favor.

(15) In view of the above requirements what has to be considered is whether the gift in this case fulfills all the requirements of Mohammedan law. ' (16) There is an overwhelming evidence both oral and dosum^ntary to prove that Sheikh Mohd. Daud gifted the major portion of his property in favor of his mother at the end of 1935 and the remainder consisting of a residential house at the end of 1942 orthe beginning of 1943. Hafiz Mohd. Daud was the owner of considerable property. He had no issue as none of the two wives bore him any child. His relations with his two wives were rather indifferent, It appears that Daud was aware of the fact that if he does not make any disposition of the property in his life time then nearly half of his estate would go to his uncle Hafiz Abdul Khaliq. Daud's relations with Abdul Khaliq were strained after the decision of the partition suit in 1926. The plaintiff Abdul Basit admitted this fact in evidence. In fact it is in evidence that Abdul Khaliq owed a sum of Rs. 3000.00 to Daud which he did not pay. Daud took out execution of the decree against Abiul Khaliq. This was admitted by Hafiz Abdul Manan, Dw, (D/3W 25).the object of D and, it seems, in making a gift of his entire property to his mother was obviously to deprive Abdul Khaliq from getting any share in his property by inheritance.