Introduction

• The case before Bombay High Court relates to validity of a gift under Mahomedan law.

Facts

• Musa Miya walad Mahamad Shaffi and Isa Miya alias Mahamad Ismailkhan walad Mahainad Shaffi, minors, were defendants No. 18 and 19 in a suit brought on 6^th January 1919, by Kadar Bax Sir Lancelot Khaj Bax, now deceased.
• The suit claimed a three-eighth share of properties left by Abdul Rasul, under Sunni Mahomedan law, with the plaintiff being one of Abdul Rasul's heirs.
• The widow and daughter of Abdul Rasul claimed that Abdul Rasul had orally gifted his properties to his grandsons (defendants 18 and 19), supported by letters and oral declarations.
• The trial court held that while there was no valid gift, the letters constituted a will, awarding the plaintiff one-fourth share and the defendants three-fourths.
• Both defendants and plaintiff appealed to the Bombay High Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether the alleged gift, announced by Abdul Rasul in 1910 without actual transfer of possession, was valid under Mahomedan law?
• Whether the circumstances surrounding the alleged gift, including Abdul Rasul's relationship with the grandsons and management of the properties, constituted a complete gift?
• Whether the findings of both the trial court and High Court regarding the absence of transfer of possession and control by Abdul Rasul are acceptable?

Observation

• The Bombay High Court did not consider the property as a valid gift under Mohammedan Law.
• Although Abdul Rasul expressed an intention to make a gift of the property to his grandsons, the court found that there was no actual gift because there was no delivery of possession.
• The court discussed whether Abdul Rasul's announcement of the gift to his friends constituted a complete gift according to Mohammedan law.
  • However, the court concluded that the facts did not meet the requirements for a complete gift under the law. Specifically, the court noted that Abdul Rasul did not relinquish control over the property, nor did he deliver possession of the property to his grandsons.
• The court also discussed a precedent regarding gifts to infant sons in Mohammedan law but found that it did not support the appellants' case.
  • The precedent applied only when the father was dead, and no guardian had been provided for the children.
  • Since the father was alive in this case and living with his family, the precedent did not apply.

Conclusion

• In summary, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal based on the understanding that the alleged gift by Abdul Rasul to his grandsons was not complete according to Mohammedan law and advised that no costs should be made since there was no appearance for the respondents.
• The court granted the plaintiff a three-eighth share of the properties left by Abdul Rasul.