AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 214 wordsThe rule of Muhammadan law in regard to hibbat is that the gift must not be implied. It must be express and unequivocal and the intention of the
donor must be demonstrated by his entire relinquishment of the thing given, and the gift is null and void where he continues to exercise any act of
ownership over it.
Where, as in this case, a house is the subject of the gift, if it continues to be occupied by the giver, there is no complete gift, (See case xxii at
page 231 of MacNaughten''s Precedents, 4th edition.)
The only exceptions are where the house gifted is given by a husband to a wife, or by a father or guardian to his minor child or ward (vide
MacNaughten''s Principles of Muhammadan law, 4th edition, chapter v, page 51, and Ameeroonissa Khatoon v. Abedoonissa Khatoon L.R. 2
IndAp 104 . In this case the donee is not shown to come within the exceptions, and we must, therefore, hold that the District Judge was wrong in
finding the gift was valid.
We accordingly reverse the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Court of First Instance. The respondents must pay the
appellant''s costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court.