Case name: – Imambandi vs Sheikh Haji Mutsaddi
Citation: – (1918) 45 cal 887
Bench: – W Phillimore, Bart., Shaw, Edge, A Ali, L Jenkins.
Date of Judgement: – 28/02/1918
Petitioner: – Imambandi
Respondent: – Sheikh Haji Mutsaddi
Facts: –
- The property belonged Ismail Ali Khan, resident of Siwan in the Saran District. The plaintiffs allege that on his death, he left surviving three widows and several children, and that from one of these widows, named Enayet-uz-Zohra, acting for her and for her two minor children; they purchased the share in suit for the possession of which they brought the present case.
- The claim was made by Enayet-uz-Zohra and her children that they were equally entitled with the other heirs of Ismail Ali Khan as co-sharers in the estate by right of inheritance, the allegation being that Zohra was one of his lawfully wedded wives and that her children were his legitimate issue.
- Zohra’s counsel claims decree in favour of the plaintiffs for possession of the shares covered by the deed of sale.
- The defendants denied, that Zohra was one of Ismail Ali Khan’s married wives or that her children were his legitimate issue, and they further contended that the shares the plaintiffs claimed to recover did not pass under the sale.
- The petitioner claimed that she was the mother of the child and hence, the legal guardian and thus, was entitled to the share of the property belonging to the child.
Issue involved: – As per the Muhammadan law how far a mother’s dealings with her minor children’s property are binding on the minors?
Obiter dicta: – It was held by the court that “the mother had no power to transfer the property for she wasn’t the legal guardian.
The guardianship means that the position of being legally responsible for the care of someone who is unable to manage their own affairs. Father or in his absence, the paternal grandfather, being the natural guardian, is in charge of the minor.
Although the mother is not the natural guardian of the child under Muslim law, she has a right to the custody of the child, until the child attains a specific age. But the father or the paternal grandfather has control over the minor throughout his minority.”
Rationale: –
1. The Lordship decided on the ground of Muhammadan law “a person who has charge of the person or property of a minor without being his legal guardian, and who may, therefore, be conveniently called a “de facto guardian,” and has no authority to convey any other right or interest on the immovable property which the transferee can enforce against the infant.”
2. “As observed that in the absence of the father under Sunni law the custody vests in his executor. If the father dies without appointing an executor, the custody of his minor child devolves on their grandfather. In De-jure guardians, judges as representative sovereign have the duty of appointing the guardianship to protect and preserve the infant’s property. No person has the right or power to interfere with the minor’s property except for some specified purpose, nature which is clearly defined.”
Judgement: – Court rejects the claim and dismissed the case of petitioner.
Conclusion: – The case deals with the guardianship and division of property which is based on guardianship.
Enayet-uz-Zohra, wife of deceased Ismail Ali Khan, after his death claims her right in the estate which belongs to her child.
The court held that the mother had no power to alienate the property for she wasn’t the legal guardian. A mother in Muslim law is merely entitled to the custody of a minor and isn’t the natural guardian. The father is the sole and supreme legal guardian.