Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Kunhacha Umma vs Kutti Mammi Hajee on 13 December, 1892
11. The next question, which was urged on behalf ot the appellant, was that if the donee is a Hindu the Mohammadan Law relating to the revocation of a gift would not apply to him. It is difficult to accept that contention. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Madras High Court reported in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee, ILR 16 Mad 201 and P. Pathumma v. Kunniyai Parkum Siyali, ILR 31 Mad 228. The latter case follows the earlier one and it is, therefore, the authority of the earlier case which is important. But neither of the two cases are applicable to the facts of the present case. In these two Madras cases A, a muslim, made a gift in favour of B and C, who weret not governed by the Mohammadan Law. The question for decision in these cases was whether after the property had been gifted to B and C, its further devolution was to be governed by the law applicable to B and C or by the Mohammadan Law, which was applicable to A, and it was held that the law applicable to the further devolution of the property would be the one ty which B and C were governed and not the law by which A was governed; and no exception can possibly be taken to that view.
Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Sharif-Un-Nissa Bibi vs Masum Ali And Anr. on 23 February, 1920
In Lal Bibi's case, 38 Ind Cas 794= (AIR 1917 Oudh 47) it was pointed out by Stuart, J. C., that in some cases past services may provide adequate consideration for a gift; and it appears that to some extent, the view taken by him is, if I may say so with respect, correct. Where services are rendered in the past, not gratis but with a view to be remunerated in future these services create a monetary obligation on the person in whose favour such services were rendered; and if in order to discharge that pecuniary liability or obligation he makes a gift, that gift would not be a gift pure and simple but a hiba-bil-iwaz as understood under the Mohammadan Law. Stuart, J. C. gives an illustration which brings out the import of the sense in which he wanted to understand the past services. He stated:
Musammat Tabera vs Ajodhya Prasad And Anr. on 29 May, 1929
The question involved for decision in the present case is whether Hamid Ali made the gift of the property to Someshwar subject to the law by which he himself was governed of subject to the law by which the donee was governed. When Someshwar obtained a gift from Hamid All, he did so subject to all the limitations to which the gift was subject and one of those limitations was the right of the donor to revoke the gift according to the personal law applicable to him. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Mt. Tabera v. Ajodhya Prasad, AIR 1929 Pat 417. This case is not on all fours, but has some bearing on the question under consideration. In that case A, a muslim made a gift of property to B, a Hindu, without executing any document but accompanied by delivery of possession. He later on sold that property to C. When a suit was filed toft possession over this property against B, it was contended on behalf of C that there being no registered document executed under the Transfer of Property Act by which the donee B was governed, the sale in his favour was not perfect, But it was held that the donor being a muslim, a gift made by him was not governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, out by the personal taw which was applicable to him.
1