Introduction

• This case deals with doctrine of Marz-ul-maut under the Muslim law which means a gift to be valid as marz-ul-maut gift must be made during marz-ul-maut, or death-illness.
• The most valid definition of marz-ul-maut is that a malady which, it is highly probable, will issue fatally.
• A gift must be deemed to be made during marz-ul-maut, if it was made under pressure of the sense of the imminence of death.

Facts

• The case was related to when gift made by an ill Muslim man falls under doctrine of Marz-ul-maut.
• A man named Abdul Kadar fell seriously ill and never recovered from his ailment. Throughout his sickness, he was incapable of taking care of himself, leading to his demise.
• At the peak of his mental decline, he sought the presence of his loved ones and when his daughters approached him, he struggled to articulate his feelings, resorting to gestures and tears as he gazed at his relatives.
• This vividly portrays the profound helplessness that overwhelmed Abdul Kadar in his final moments of suffering. However, he made a gift in these circumstances.
• These circumstances strongly suggest that while making a gift approximately 24 hours before his death, he was gripped by a subjective and imminent awareness of his impending demise.

Issue Involved

• Whether the gift in question was made 'under the pressure of the sense of the imminence of death’?

Observation

• The Bombay High Court said that doctrine of marz-ul-maut must cover three conditions:
  • The person must be sick.
  • There should be an expectation of a fatal outcome.
  • There must be certain physical signs indicating the seriousness of the illness.
• The court also emphasized that mere fear of death in an old person without any illness is not enough to apply the doctrine.
  • Simply the possibility of death, a natural part of life, is not sufficient reason to challenge someone's will.
• The cause of death and the person's condition are crucial. Death is certain, but the immediate risk of death due to illness can affect a person's behavior.
• The court stated that if there is evidence supporting the findings of the lower courts, based on people close to the deceased or relevant documents, then there's no need for further investigation of gift made during illness in a second appeal.
• If there is a suspicion that the person making a gift was aware of their impending death, the burden of proof shifts to the party challenging the gift. The mre contention showing the death was accidental is not enough evidence.

Conclusion

• The Court finally held that doctrine of marz-ul-maut cannot be challenged in second appeal unless the evidence proves the challenge. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.