Mahomedan minor property transfer rules bar alienation by de facto guardian and unauthorized adult heirs' sale

Before the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, a custom displacing Mahomedan rules on guardianship had to be clearly pleaded and proved as definite, uniform and invariable; no such custom was established here, so the mother was not shown to be a lawful guardian for the minor. Under Mahomedan law, a de facto guardian cannot transfer a minor's immovable property, and adult heirs cannot bind a minor heir's separate share by treating inherited property as subject to a general act of administration. The sale was therefore ineffective against the minor's share, subject only to restitution of the minor's proportionate benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, before the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the parties could establish a custom governing guardianship of minors in derogation of Mahomedan law, and whether such custom was proved. (ii) Whether a sale deed executed by the mother of a Mahomedan minor, or alternatively as an alleged act of administration by adult heirs, was binding on the minor's share.

Issue (i): Whether, before the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the parties could establish a custom governing guardianship of minors in derogation of Mahomedan law, and whether such custom was proved.

Analysis: The statutory change introduced by the Shariat Act could not retrospectively control the validity of a pre-1937 transaction. Prior to that Act, guardianship questions were governed by the applicable personal law as modified, if at all, by a valid and established custom. A custom capable of displacing the ordinary Mahomedan rule had to be definite, uniform and invariable, and had to be clearly pleaded and proved. The evidence and pleadings did not identify any consistent local or family custom, and the documents showed variations as to who acted as guardian, which negatived any uniform rule.

Conclusion: The alleged custom was not proved, and the mother was not the legal guardian competent to act for the minor.

Issue (ii): Whether a sale deed executed by the mother of a Mahomedan minor, or alternatively as an alleged act of administration by adult heirs, was binding on the minor's share.

Analysis: Under Mahomedan law, a de facto guardian has no authority to transfer immovable property of a minor, and the estate of a deceased Mahomedan vests in each heir in separate shares at the moment of death. The theory that one heir can represent all others and bind the minors by a voluntary alienation for payment of the deceased's debts was rejected in preference to contrary observations. In the absence of court-appointed guardianship or lawful authority, the adult heirs could not treat the entire estate as vested in one of them for purposes of alienation binding on a minor heir. The sale was therefore invalid so far as the minor's share was concerned.

Conclusion: The alienation was not binding on the minor's share, though the minor was required to refund his proportionate share of the consideration corresponding to the deceased's liabilities already discharged.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed, and the decree setting aside the sale deed as against the plaintiff's share with restitutionary adjustment was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A de facto guardian of a Mahomedan minor cannot alienate the minor's immovable property, and adult heirs cannot, without lawful authority, bind a minor heir's separate share by selling inherited property as a supposed act of administration.

---