Mohammaden Law

  1. S.167 — Gift revocation of — A gift may be revoked by the donor at any time before the delivery of possession — If possession is delivered then in that case without a decree of the competent Court the gift cannot be revoked — It was mentioned in the gift-deed by the donor that the gift is absolute and it shall not be revoked by him and this right would not be available to his heirs after his death. Muhammad Aslam and another v. Muhammad Rashid 2006 SCR 11 (D)
  2. —S.252—the essentials of a valid Nikah— Nikah should be performed in one meeting after proposed and acceptance in presence of the witnesses. Muhammad Shawal v. Sonia Farooq 2019 SCR 934 (A)
  3. S. 349 — Mahommedan Law provides that applications for appointment of guardian of the persons or property are to be made under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — Subsequent principles deal with the right of different persons for custody of a minor. Sughran Bibi v. Akhtar Hussain 2006 SCR 301 (C)
  4. Gift — Person admitting to hold the land on behalf of the donee-admits his title. Mst. Khurshid Begum v.  Mst. Munaza Akhtar 1992 SCR 398 (A)
  5. Gift ‘Musha’ — Valid without formal delivery of possession. Mst. Khurshid Begum v. Mst. Munaza Akhtar 1992 SCR 398 (B)
  6. Dissolution of marriage — Demand of maintenance — Appellant failed to maintain her wife during the period she was putting up with her mother — Held: She was entitled to dissolution of her marriage even on this sole ground. Muhammad Suleman v. Mst. Razia Bibi 1992 SCR 265 (D)
  7. Khula’- Wheather the husband is entitled to demand the return of anything more that he had given to his wife — Difference of opinion among the jurists. M. H. v. Nasim Akhtar 1992 SCR 62 (A)
  8. Khula’- Husband is entitled to demand all things which he gave to his wife in the form of dower or otherwise. Muhammad Hussain  v. Nasim Akhtar 1992 SCR 62 (B) PLD 1967 S.C. 97 rel.
  9. Divorce — ‘Unsound mind’ — plea of — Plea not taken in written statement filed by husband — It is too late to stress that the suit was incompetent because she was not of sound mind. Muhammad Suleman v. Mst. Razia Bibi 1992 SCR 265 (A)
  10. Inheritance — Admittedly ‘B’ had inherited the estate left by her husband as a sharer whereas the remaining three fourth share had gone to legal descendants — On the death of ‘B’ the sons of her deceased brother were entitled to inherit the land or receive the compensation amount of land. Mukhtar Ahmad and 2 others v. Adalat Hussain & 4 others 1997 SCR 237 (A)
  11. ‘Khula’ — Allegation against father of the respondent — Hatred between the spouses — Respondent flatly refused to live with the appellant — Held: In these circumstances it was impossible for the spouses to reconcile and live together — Family Court rightly passed the decree of ‘Khula’ in favour of the respondent. Saleem Akther v. Judge Family Court & 2 others 1997 SCR 381 (A)
  12. ‘Khula’ — If the spouses have developed so much hatred dis-respect and dis-comfort against each other it is advisable to dissolve the marriage on the basis of ‘Khula’ which is the right of wife. Saleem Akther v. Judge Family Court & 2 others 1997 SCR 381 (B)
  13. Gift — Execution of gift-deed not proved through any evidence — Marginal witnesses or scribe not produced — No reasons whatsoever were shown as to why the gift-deed was executed in favour of the appellant and proforma-respondents and the wife and a son were deprived of the property — The burden of basic issue of execution of the document should have been placed on the shoulders of  defendant-appellant — The District Judge and the High Court concurrently gave findings against appellant and proforma-respondents  that the predecessor of respondents did not register a gift-deed in favour of appellant — And a fraud was committed — The findings of facts are not assailable before this Court. Raj Muhammad v. Zinat Begum and 8 others 2004 SCR 541 (A)
  14. In presence of parents claiming the custody of child grandparents or other legal guardians cannot be considered for handing over the custody to them under any law including Muhammadan Law and Guardian and Wards Act — Provisions of Muhammadan Law are clear — However, deviation from this view has been recorded in some cases but that also in the interest and welfare of the minor. Sughran Bibi v. Akhtar Hussain 2006 SCR 301 (A)
  15. Findings recorded by this Court that welfare of the minors would be presumed with person who is entitled to the custody under Muslim Law is not absolute and shall always remain subject to the welfare of minors. Sughran Bibi v. Akhtar Hussain 2006 SCR 301 (B)
  16. Guidelines provided by Mahommedan Law are not absolute in nature and while appointing a guardian of the person of a minor her choice cannot be overlooked and that the paramount consideration which has to weigh with the Court is welfare of the minor which includes not only her well-being but has to be determined keeping in view the surrounding in and outside the house where her father or mother lives. Sughran Bibi v. Akhtar Hussain 2006 SCR 301 (E)
  17. Inheritance — Estate of deceased Muslim — Mutation sanctioned — Not challenged — Its effect — Decree for joint possession — Its maintainability —  On the death of a Muslim his property devolves on his legal heirs and they are entitled to inherit the same according  to their shares prescribed under Mahommedan Law — Argument that mutation of the estate of (deceased) was sanctioned and (plaintiff) was not entered as sharer, she never challenged it, therefore, no decree for possession can be passed in her favour particularly when she has not challenged the mutation. Held: Is misconceived — On the death of a Muslim his legal heirs are entitled to inherit although their names do not appear as heirs in the revenue record. They are co-sharers in the land and entitled to a decree of joint possession. M. Aziz Khan v. Feroz Din & others 2011 SCR 378 (A)
  18. Inheritance — limitation — no bar — on the death of a Muslim, his property devolves upon the legal heirs and they are entitled for the same according to their share prescribed under the Mohammaden Law. Mst. Abdul Bi (deceased) through L.H. v. Collector Land Acquisition & 3 others 2016 SCR 1338 (C) PLD 1993 SC (AJ&K) 24 & 2011 SCR 378 rel.
  19. — according to Qur’an and Sunnah, the adopted son cannot claim inheritance. Ahmed Saleem Ansari  v. Wajahat Hussain Ansari & 7 others 2017 SCR 1163 (B)
  20. —Islamic jurisprudence—custom—ouster of female from inheritance—no documentary proof that marriage was taken place in Dogra Regime and at that time it was mandatory that the subjects be governed by custom—Held: in the Holy Quran the Allah Almighty has already determined the share of the females and the Muslims are bound to perform all the acts according to the command ordained by Allah Almighty. Abdul Rehman & 5  others V. Nazim & 14 others 2020 SCR 498 (A) Surah Al Nisa verses No 7 & 11 ref
error: Content is protected !!