One Mammotty was married to Seinaba and he made a gift of his properties including immovable property to Seinaba on April 7, 1944 by a registered deed.
After the death of Seinaba, the present suit was brought by Kunhamu an eider brother of Mammotty for partition and possession of a 6/16 share of the property which he claimed as an heir under the Muhammadan Law, challenging the gift as invalid.
The facts leading up to this question may number be stated.
He also submitted that the first three defendants the appellants were entitled to the remaining 4/16 share as heirs of Seinaba.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 23, 1960, of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No.
To the suit he joined his two sisters as defendants who he submitted were entitled to a 3/16 share each.
In other words, Kunhamus companytention was that when succession opened out on the death of Mammotty, his widow Seinaba was entitled to the enhanced share of 1/4 as there was numberissue, and the remaining 3/4 was divisible between Kunhamu and his two sisters, Kunhamu getting twice as much as each sister, These shares according to him were unaffected by the invalid gift in faVour of Seinaba and accepted on her behalf by her mother.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 to 3 raises an important question under the Muhammadan Law, which may be stated thus Is a gift by a husband to his minor wife and accepted on her behalf by her mother valid P It has been held by the High Court and the companyrts below that in Muhammadan Law such a gift is invalid.
103 1957.
513 of 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J This appeal by special leave by defendants Nos.
Sardar Bahadur, for the respondents.
Mammotty died on May 3, 1946 without an issue.
T. Desai and V.A. Seyid Muhmmad, for the appellants.
August 23, 1963.
