S.N. Usman Ali and Another vs O.B.V. Kubendra Bai and Another

V. Ramaswami, J.—The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed for a declaration of title and possession of the suit properties. The

suit properties are an extent of 2.52 acres of nanja land. The property originally belonged to one Nagoor Ghani Sahib. The plantiffs are the sons of

the said Nagoor Ghani Sahib through his second wife. Under a gift deed dated 3rd May, 1948 a registration copy of which has been filed and

marked as Exhibit A-1, Nagoor Ghani Sahib gifted this property to the plaintiffs. On 2nd August, 1919 the said Nagoor Ghani Sahib executed a

mortgage by deposit of title deeds and later on sold the properties to the second defendant under Exhibit B-7 dated 10th October, 1952. The

second defendant is stated to be a benamidar for the first defendant and there is no dispute regarding the same. The plaintiffs'' case was that their

father had no right to convey the property under Exhibit B-7 after executing the gift deed under the original of Exhibit A-1. The defendants on the

other hand contended that the gift was neither accepted nor noted upon and it was merely a nominal document. Both the Courts below have

concurrently held that the plaintiffs have not proved the acceptance of the gift and on that ground the gift did not operate and that therefore the

defendants derived valid title under Exhibit B-7. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that since the gift was in favour of minors strict

proof of acceptance of the gift could not be expected; nor would it be possible for the plaintiffs to. prove such acceptance. But Mohammedan Law

does not dispense with the necessity for acceptance of the gift even in cases where the donees are minors. If the donees are minors it may be that

the evidence of acceptance will have to be approached with reference to that fact, but that does not mean that no proof of evidence of acceptance

is necessary in the case of a gift in favour of minors. In this case, even the gift deed does not recite that possession of the property had been

delivered to the minors; nor has it been proved that the original document was handed over to the mother of the plaintiffs even accepting that in the

peculiar circumstances the mother could have acted as a guardian. The plea set up by the plaintiffs that the mother was leasing the properties

subsequent to the gift had not been accepted by the Courts below and I do not find therefore any ground to interfere with the findings of the Courts

below. The second appeal therefore fails and it is dismissed with costs. No leave.