( 316 >
Present: Lyall Grant J. and Jayewardene A.J.
IBRAHIM NATCHIA et al v. ABDUL CADKH.
392—D. G. Puttalam, 3,801.
Muslim law—Donation—Death of donee—Right of revocation.
Under the Muslim law a donation cannot be revoked after*the death of the donee,
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Puttalam-The facts appear from the judgment.
Drieberg, K.G. (with James Joseph), for plaintiffs, appellants.
Hayley (with Ganakaratne and Gader), for defendant, respondent-
October 4, 1926. Lyall Grant J.—
One Mohomado Miskin owned among others two pieces of landcalled Nindeni Poomy and Periaculam Kado. He married twicehis second wife, Ava Umma, is still alive.
By his first wife he had three daughters: Ibrahim Natchia, Meera.Natchia, and Aysia Umma. By his second wife he had a sonrSahul Hameedo, bom in 1900.
In 1910 Miskin executed on August 12 a gift to (a) Sahul Hameedoof the land Nindeni Poomy, (b) a gift to the three daughters of theland Periaculam Kado, and (c) a gift to all his four children and-a grandchild of his residing house.
These deeds were registered on August 19, 1910. On April 22,1918, Meera Natchia transferred her rights in Periaculam Kadoto Sahul Hameedo. In 1919 Aysia Umma died, and Miskin re-acquired her rights from her husband.
Sahul Hameedo died on March 5, 1919, and his rights to NindeniPoomy passed under the deed of gift to Ibrahim Natchia andMeera Natchia in equal shares.
The position at this date accordingly was that Ibrahim Natchiapossessed a one-third share of Periaculam Kado plus a half share ofNindeni Po(omy, while her sister Meera Natchia possessed a halfshare of Nindeni Poomy.
On October 6, 1919. Miskin purported to revoke the gift ofNindeni Poomy, but the deed of revocation is ex facie bad as it is-not signed by all the parties interested, unless at that date Miskinretained the right to revoke.
( 317 )
On January 19, 1921, Ibrahim Natchia transferred her one-thirdlflSte*
share of Periaculam Kado to Miskin. The position then was thatTjVatt.
Miskin owned the whole of Periaculam Eadof and the two daughters Grant J-had title each to a half share of Nindeni Poomy.Ibrahim
Acting however, under his deed of revocation, Miskin on Abdul Cade*-March 16, 1921, gifted to Ibrahim Natchia and her children propertyin the town of Puttalam, and to her children the whole of NindeniPoomy.
On August 14, 1922, he revoked this gift. On August 14, Mi6kinrhis wife (Ava Umma), and his daughter (Meera Natchia) leased tocertain people the lands Nindeni Poomy and Periaculam Kado.
Why Ibrahim Natchia did not join in this deed does not appear.
On August 18, 1922, Miskin gifted to Ibrahim Natchia NindeniPoomy; and on the same date, he, his wife, and Ibrahim Natchiajoined together in gifting to Meera Natchia a share of PeriaculamKado.
Other deeds were executed on the same date by which Miskingave other pieces of land to Meera Natchia.
On January 9, 1922, Meera Natchia gave a promissory notefor Ks. 15,000 to one Abdul Cader. This note was put in spit onJune 21, 1924. Judgment on the note was given on August 7,
1924, and execution applied for on August 20, 1924. An undividedhalf share of Nindeni Poomy was pointed out by the plaintiff to*the Fiscal and was seized.
A claim to the land seized was made by Ibrahim Natchia, who-claimed under the deed of August 18, 1922. The claimant did not-appear in support of her claim, and the claim was dismissed onOctober 7, 1924. The matter was reopened, and the claim wasfinally dismissed on March 16, 1925..
The present action is brought under section 247 of the Civil.
Procedure Code. The District Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's,action, and from that decision the present appeal is taken.
The principal issues tried in the action were in substance—
Whether the original deed of gift of Nindeni Poomy was
invalid for want of immediate seisin by the donee ?
If valid, was it revoked by the deed of cancellation of
October 6, 1919 ?
If the deed is valid and the revocation inoperative, was there
a subsequent family arrangement in pursuance of whichthe deed of August 19, 1922, donating Nindeni Poomy -to Ibrahim Natchia was executed ?
If so, does the first plaintiff get an absolute title.
Had Miskin on August 19, 1922, title to Nindeni Poomy ?
■( 318 )
IbrahimNatehia v.^Abdul Gader
AH' these issues were answered by the District Judge in the. negative. The District Judge proceeded on the basis that theoriginal deed must be governed by Roman-Dutch law, and notby Mohamedan law, insasmuch as paragraph 5 constitutes a fideicommissum.
.It was argued in appeal that the parties being Mohamedans, the. question of the donor’s power to make a gift must be governed byMohamedan law, and that under this law the deed was invalid,inasmuch: as possession was never given to the donee and the gift. therefore was never completed.
Under Mohamedan law, in a gift by a father to a minor childacceptance is not necessary, and possession by the father is deemedi to be possession by the minor. (Tyabji’s Principles of MohamedanlLaw,,paragraphs 346 and 400.)
It was,- however, argued that in this deed the interposition of a! life interest to the mother showed that no possession was given.
I do not think, however, that any right of possession was given- to Ava Umma. All that the deed said was that she should possessthe income of the property during her lifetime. Accordingly, I-think that even dealing with the deed as a deed under Mohamedanlaw, it is valid.
The revocation was made after the death of the donee, and the• death of the donee took away the donor’s power to revoke. (Tyabii's'Principles of Mohamedan Law, paragraph 426.)
The District Judge was therefore right in answering the first;two issues in the negative, and the question whether Miskin hadtitle to Ninderii Poomy on August 19, 1922, must depend uponwhether there was a family arrangement valid against creditors-.existing at that date. Such an arrangement is sought to be provedby a comparison of the various deeds executed before. and on. August 18, 1922.
I can find nothing in these deeds to show distinctly that MeeraNatchia gave up her rights to Nindeni Poomy, or that any land was■•'transferred to her in consideration of her renunciation of theserights.
I think the District Judge was right in answering all the issuesi in the negative.
The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
. Jayewardene A.J.—I agree.
IBRAHIM NATCHIA et al. v. ABDUL CADER