STATE OF U.P. versus SAYED ABDUL JALIL

STATE OF U.P. versus SAYED ABDUL JALIL

The transaction did not constitute a gift of the house or any life interest but amounted at most to the grant of a revocable licence to reside, as indicated by the language and surrounding circumstances, and oral and other evidence was both necessary and admissible under s. 92, proviso (6) of the Indian Evidence Act to resolve ambiguity; the requirements of a valid gift under Mohammedan Law were not satisfied.

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P.; Respondent: Sayed Abdul Jalil
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree of Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 222 of 1960
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the High Court set aside; parties to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
Gift Under Mohammedan Law, Interpretation of Grant by Ruler, Admissibility of Evidence Under Evidence Act S.92 Proviso (6), Revocable Licence
Property Law Evidence Law Muslim Law Gift Under Mohammedan Law Interpretation of Grant by Ruler Admissibility of Evidence Under Evidence Act S.92 Proviso (6) Revocable Licence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P.

Appellant

Sayed Abdul Jalil

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree of Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 222 of 1960

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of a Muslim ruler allotting a house constitutes a gift of the corpus under Mohammedan Law or only a revocable licence.
  2. 2 Whether only the order could be looked into to determine the Nawab's intention or whether other evidence is admissible under s. 92 proviso (6) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The transaction did not constitute a gift of the house or any life interest but amounted at most to the grant of a revocable licence to reside, as indicated by the language and surrounding circumstances, and oral and other evidence was both necessary and admissible under s. 92, proviso (6) of the Indian Evidence Act to resolve ambiguity; the requirements of a valid gift under Mohammedan Law were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the High Court set aside; parties to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court set aside; appeal allowed; parties to bear their own costs throughout.