LexV. SREERAMA CHANDRA AVADHANI (D) BY LRS. versus SHAIK ABDUL RAHIM AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1096 A V. SREERAMACHANDRAAVADHANI (D) BY LRS. B v. SHAIKABDUL RAHIMANDANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2364 of 2005) AUGUST 21, 2014 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] c Mohammedan Law - Gifts (hiba) - Conditional gifts - Nature and effect of- Held: Under Mohammad an Law, a gift has to be unconditional - Therefore, conditions expressed · in a gift, are to be treated as void -A conditional gift is valid, but the conditions are void - Conditions are however 0 permissible, ifthegiftismerelyofausufruct-Therefore, the gift of a usufruct can validly impose a limit, in point of time (as an interest, restricted to the-life of the donee) - In a gift · which contempiates the transfer of the corpus, there is no question of such transfer being cenditional - The transfer E is absolute - Conditions imposed.in a gift of the corpus are void -- On facts, the gift deed in question contemplated transfer of the corpus and not the usufruct - Clearly, the intention of the donor in the gift deed, was to transfer the corpus of the immovable property to the donee, and not F merely a usufruct therein - Since the donor through the gift deed had transferred the corpus of the immovable property to the donee (his wife), the gift deed was valid-All conditions depicted in the gift deed curtailing use or disposal of the property gifted were ther:efore void - Since the gift deed G irrevocably vested all rights in the immovable property in the donee, subsequent sale of the gifted immovable property by the donee wife to appellant was legal and valid, and consequently, the claim of respondents to the gifted property, on the demise of the donee wife, not sustainable in law. H 1096 V. SREERAMACHANDRAAVADHANI (D) BY LRS. v. 1097 SHAIKABDUL RAHIM 'S', a Muslim gentleman, executed a gift deed on A 26.04.1952, thereby gifting an immovable property in favour of his wife 'B'. 'B' enjoyed the property during the lifetime of 'S'; and even after his demise in 1966, continued to exclusively enjoy the property. On 02.05.1978, 'B' sold the gifted property to appellant. 'B' B died on 17.02.1989. On her demise, the respondents issued a legal notice to the vendee-appellant staking a claim on the said gifted property asserting, firstly, that 'B' had only a life interest in the gifted property; and secondly, that the respondents being the LRs of 'S' came c to be vested with the right and title over the gifted property, after the demise of 'B'. The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court held that 'S' had gifted the corpus of the immovable property to his wife 'B'; and D all the conditions expressed by the donor 'S', in the gift deed dated 26.04.1952, depriving the donee 'B' of absolute right/interest in the gifted property, were void; and that the gift deed dated 26.04.1952, was not in the nature of a usufruct. The First Appellate Court did not E examine whether the gift deed dated 26-04-1952, constituted transfer of the corpus of the property, or merely its usufruct; and held that 'B' had merely been transferred a life interest in the property gifted to her on 26.04.1952. The High Court also did not take into F consideration whether the gift was in respect of the corpus of the immovable property, or its usufruct and affirmed the determination recorded by the FirstAppellate Court. In the instant appeal, the question which arose for G consideration was whether the gift deed dated 26.04.1952 irrevocably vested all rights in the immovable property in 'B', and thus, the sale of the gifted property by 'B' to appellant on 02.05.1978, was legal and valid; and consequently, the claim of the respondents to the H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A gifted property, on the demise of '8' on 17.02.1989, was not sustainable in law. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. The parameters for gifts (under 8 Mohammedan Law) are clear and well defined. Under Muhammadan Law, a gift has to be unconditional. Therefore, conditions expressed in a gift, are to be treated as void. A conditional gift is valid, but the conditions are void. [Para 11][1109-G; 1110-C-D] C 1.2. Gifts pertaining to the corpus of the property are absolute. Where a gift of corpus seeks to impose a limit, in point of time (as a life interest), the condition is void. Likewise, all other conditions, in a gift of the corpus are impermissible. In other words, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.