Oral Muslim gift in lieu of dower is valid if possession is delivered and no fraud on creditors is shown.

An oral gift of immovable property by a Muslim husband to his wife in lieu of dower is valid when declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession are proved. Such a gift is not invalid for want of registration, and Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act does not bar oral proof where Mahomedan law governs the transfer. The applicable rule of Muslim law is preserved by Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, so the general gift provisions do not displace it. The transfer is also not impeachable as fraudulent merely because it prefers the wife as a creditor; it fails only if shown to be a fictitious or colourable device to defeat creditors.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an oral gift of immovable property by a Muslim husband to his wife in lieu of her dower was valid and provable, and whether it was hit by the requirements of registration or by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (ii) whether the transfer could be impeached as one made to defeat, delay or defraud creditors.

Issue (i): Whether an oral gift of immovable property by a Muslim husband to his wife in lieu of her dower was valid and provable, and whether it was hit by the requirements of registration or by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: The evidence established that the husband had made the gift and that possession had been delivered to the wife. Under Mahomedan law, an oral gift is complete when there is declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession, and a gift in lieu of dower is not rendered invalid merely because no registered instrument was executed. The Court further held that Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 preserves the applicable rule of Mahomedan law, so the provisions governing gifts under Chapter VII do not displace a valid Muslim gift of this kind. The inference that a written deed had been withheld was rejected, and the oral evidence was held admissible.

Conclusion: The oral gift was valid in law and was provable by oral evidence; it was not invalid for want of registration or by reason of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer could be impeached as one made to defeat, delay or defraud creditors.

Analysis: The wife's dower was found to be a genuine debt and she stood in the position of a creditor. The transfer was treated as a bona fide preference of one creditor over others, which is permissible where there is no fraud and no reservation of benefit to the debtor. On the facts, the transfer was not shown to be a fictitious or colourable device to defeat creditors generally.

Conclusion: The transfer was not fraudulent as against creditors.

Final Conclusion: The objections to attachment were allowed, and the appeal succeeded because the transfer in favour of the wife was upheld as a valid Muslim gift not vitiated by fraud on creditors.

Ratio Decidendi: A Muslim husband may validly make an oral gift of immovable property to his wife in lieu of dower, and such a transfer remains effective if the essential elements of gift under Mahomedan law are proved and the transaction is not shown to be a fraudulent device against creditors.

---