Case Comment - V. Sreeramachandra Avadhani V. Shaik Abdul Rahim, (2014) 9 SCC 350

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:42:56.895Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:05:23.266Z

CASE COMMENT: V. SREERAMACHANDRA AVADHANI V.

SHAIK ABDUL RAHIM, (2014) 9 SCC 350

Palak Maheshwari, LLM, ITM University Gwalior, B. A. LL. B. (Hons. ), MNLU Nagpur Introduction This judgment of Supreme Court was delivered by two-judge Bench comprising of Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice Rohinton Nali Fariman. In this case comment, researchers shall deal with the aspect of gift under Muslim Law. The basis of the principle of gift is the Prophet’s saying, “Exchange gifts among yourselves so that love may increase. ”1 Thus, gift is the exchange of property for which other party does not pay consideration. There are two parties required for the transfer, one person who transfers the property called as Donor and the one who accepts the same by himself or by someone authorized on his behalf called Donee. By means of this transfer, the donor renounces all his title and rights in the property gifted away of his independent free will.

2 Facts of the Case Sheikh Hussein Banu Bibi was married to Sheikh Hussein according to Muslim personal laws. During the subsistence of their marriage, a gift deed also known as Hiba was executed by Sheikh Hussein, whereby a “tiled house” with open space was gifted to Banu Bibi out of love and affection. Sheikh Hussein, the sole owner of the house gifted it to her with the condition of no power of alienation meaning thereby: (i) After her death the property will go to her offspring, and if she is issueless it will come back either to Sheikh Hussein or to his legal heir; and (ii) Banu Bibi had the exclusive right to use and enjoy the property, but she had no right of

1 3 BURHAN AL-DIN AL- MARGHINANI, AL- HIDAYAH 283 (Quran Mahal, Karachi 2003); “SIR DINSHAW FARDUNJI

MULLA, PRINCIPLES OF MOHAMMEDAN LAW 155 (22nd ed., 2017).”

2 MULLA 155 (Supra note 1); 1 “DR. TANZIL-UR-RAHMAN, A CODE OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW 1 (1978).”

selling the property. However, she sold it to V. Sreeramachandra Avadhani who was not a legal heir. After Banu Bibi’s death dispute arose as to who is the rightful owner. So the legal heir of Sheikh Hussein went to court for issuing the legal notice. In the notice, legal heir contented that Banu Bibi had no absolute right in the property that was gifted to her. Issues

1. Whether the condition made by Donor that Donee possesses only life interest over the

gifted property is valid?

2. Whether the transaction of property between plaintiff and Banu Bibi is valid?

Conceptual Understanding of Gift Gift, being an exchange of inter-vivos and transfer of property, is generally governed by The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter TPA). However, chapter VII of TPA does not apply to “Muslim gifts” known as Hiba. It has been held by the Patna High Court that “the rules of Muslim law regarding gifts are based on reasonable classification and Section 129 exempting Muslims from certain provisions of TPA, 1882 is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution”. 3 A man, under Mahomedan law, has the right to give away the whole of his property by gift during his life-time. a Hiba or gift or a disposition between living persons, literally means “the donation of a thing from which the donee may derive benefit.

” Hedaya defines Hiba in the following words “Hiba is an unconditional transfer of ownership in an existing property, made immediately and without any consideration. ” A gift under Muslim Law is a:

1. There should be a certain existing property whether movable or immovable.

2. It should be done without any limitation and voluntary.

3 Bibi Maniran v. Mohd. Ishaque, AIR 1963 Pat 229.

3. It should be without any consideration (Ewaz)

4. There should be an acceptance by or on behalf of the donee.

When the spouse gifts the property when their marital ties were active then it becomes irrevocable that is after this transaction can’t be cancelled,4 regardless of whether the marriage is dissolved afterwards or becomes irregular. Conditions Essential for Making Gift Validity of gift keep intact even without writing whether of movable or of immovable property. In Kamar-un-nissa Bibi v. Hussain Bibi,5 the Privy Council upheld a verbal gift. There are three essentials for completing valid transfer of gift under Muslim Law:

1. Announcement of gift by donor.

2. Acceptance of either in expressed or in implied way by the donee or any other person

on his behalf.

3. Delivery of possession completes the gift.6

The Supreme Court in Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail7 has held that “gift under Muslim Law is not required to be in writing and to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.” In order to effectuate transfer of a gift, the essentials of Declaration, Acceptance and Delivery of Possession must be complete.8 “Gift of immovable property by husband to wife or by wife to husband,9 whether the property is used by them for their joint residence10, or is let out to tenants.11 The fact that the husband

4 “NEIL B.E. BAILLIE, pt. 1, A DIGEST OF MOOHUMMUDAN LAW, 534 (1865); MUHAMMAD ALA-UD-DIN HASKAFI,

DURR-UL-MUKHTAR 371 (B.M. Dayal trans., 2008).”

5 (1880) 3 All. 266.

6 “Abdul Sattar v. The Fifth Additional District Judge 1978 All L.J. 543 [T.S. Mishra, J.].”

7 AIR 1995 SC 1205.

8 “Azaz Ahmed v. Krishnpaid 1971 An. W.R. 542.”

9 SIR W.H. MACNAGHTEN, PRINCIPLES AND PRECEDENTS OF MOOHUMMADAN LAW, S.9, 51 (William Sloan ed.,

Madras, 1897) (1825); MULLA 174 (Supra note 1)

10 “Amina Bibi v. Khatija Bibi, (1864) 1 Bom. H.C. 157.”

11 Emnabai v. Hajirbai (1889) 13 Bom 352.

receives the rents or continues to live in the house will not invalidate the gift”; the presumption that has been made in this scenario is that he is collecting it on the behalf of the wife. 12 Decision Trial court in its decision relied on Nawazish Ali Khan v. Ali Raza Khan,13 and stated that Donor had gifted the corpus of the house and attached space to his wife and completed all essential elements to constitute a gift deed, but the condition of not disposing it off were declared to be void because this was restraining the donee to exercise a full right and interest in the gifted property. The trial court concluded that “the gift deed was valid and that the gifted property came to be irrevocably vested in the donee Banu Bibi”.

The lower appellate court, however, while interpreting the contents of the gift deeds in the nature of disputed question of fact had misconceived the legal nuances of gift and had set aside the judgment of the trial court. In second appeal even the High Court also failed to go into the nature and effect of the gift and concurred with the finding recorded by the first appellate court. Heirs of Sreeramchandra appealed to the Supreme Court through SLP wherein the court said that “under Muslim Law, a gift has to be unconditional and if there is any condition attached to it, conditions expressed shall be treated as void. A conditional gift is valid, but the conditions are void”. Muslim Law perceives the differentiation between the corpus and usufruct of the property. Corpus alludes to an adjustment in possession while usufruct alludes to a change in the right to its use/enjoyment etc.

In a gift which thought about the exchange of the corpus, there is no doubt of such exchange being contingent i. e. , “the transfer is complete. Where an endowment of corpus tries to impose a limit, in point of time such as a limited interest, the condition is void. In like manner, every single other condition, in gift of the corpus are impermissible. Conditions are anyway passable, if the gift is only of a usufruct. Thusly, the gift of a usufruct can truly impose a limit”. To decide whether the gift deed envisaged a transfer of corpus, the contents of the gift deed itself have to be examined. Firstly, the donor purchased the gifted property from his own

12 “Ma Mi v. Kallander Ammal AIR 1927 PC 22.”

13 AIR 1984 PC 134.

earning clearing any dispute about the title of donor. Secondly, the word “we shall have no rights to cancel this conveyance” reveals the intention of the donor. Thirdly, the use of the words “neither myself nor my successor shall raise any objection in respect of the conveyed property” extinguish not only donors right but of his successors also. Fourthly, the gift deed records that “after your lifetime this property shall devolve upon your offspring”. The thing to be noted is the use of “your offspring” and not “our offspring” in the deed which means her children and not necessarily children with donor itself. Lastly, the declaration in the deed said “Municipal taxes will be Borne by the Donee after transfer shows that the Donee was to henceforth bear all liabilities of the gifted property, as its owner”.

Conclusion and Evaluation The Supreme Court correctly applied the principles of Muslim Law to rule that the condition in the gift deed that Banu Bibi had no power of alienation was void. Further, it correctly held that the transfer of between plaintiff and Banu Bibi was valid. A condition imposed in the gift does not make the transfer of gift invalid. It was transfer of corpus which gave Banu Bibi absolute right over the property which means she can dispose it off in any way she likes so the transaction between them was valid. Under Muslim law there are two types of gifts i. e Hiba, gift of the corpus and Ariyat, gift of the usufruct. Though TPA, 1872 does not apply here but we can say that it also declares conditional transfers void sometimes. The gift that was given to Banu Bibi was a conditional gift.

Supreme Court rightly stated the principles of Muslim Law and declared the condition as void, thereby ruling that she had absolute right which included both possession and ownership bestowing upon her the power to dispose it off. “In Hiba when absolute interest that is the ownership and possession both is transferred to the donee, where Hiba is alleged to be made with the conditions in the use or disposal of that property that has been gifted, all the conditions are void and the Hiba would be considered as valid. ” It is generally irrevocable. once validly made. Before giving possession of delivery, “the gift is not complete and the donor has unrestricted right to revoke it but not after the transfer of the possession.

” Moreover there is a doctrine of or Amree which states about the life grant which also says: “An Amree or life grant is lawful to the grantee during his life and descends to his heirs. The meaning of Amree is a gift of a house (for example) during the life of the donee on the condition of its being returned upon his death. An Amree is nothing but a gift and a condition and the condition is invalid but a gift is not rendered null by involving an invalid condition. ”