Mahomedan law on legitimacy and minor property transfer: paternal acknowledgment supports inheritance, but unauthorised conveyance binds no infant interest.

Mahomedan law recognises a legal presumption of legitimacy and inheritance where the deceased father has acknowledged children as his own, even if marriage proof is incomplete and account-book omissions are relied on against the claimant. That presumption supported Zohra and her children's entitlement to inheritance shares. By contrast, a mother who is not a legal guardian cannot validly convey her minor children's immovable property so as to bind the infants. A transferee under such an unauthorised conveyance acquires no enforceable interest against the minors, and the transfer is ineffective to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Zohra was the lawful wife of the deceased and her children were legitimate so as to entitle them to shares in his inheritance; (ii) whether a mother, not being a legal guardian, could validly convey her minor children's interest in immovable property to bind the infants.

Issue (i): Whether Zohra was the lawful wife of the deceased and her children were legitimate so as to entitle them to shares in his inheritance.

Analysis: The evidence of marriage was not fully satisfactory by itself, and the absence of entries in the account-books could not be treated as conclusive against her. The decisive circumstance was reliable proof that the deceased had acknowledged her children as his own. In Mahomedan law, such acknowledgment gives rise to a legal presumption in favour of the mother and the children, which is not displaced by mere negative inference from the account-books.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of Zohra and her children, who were held entitled to their legal shares in the inheritance.

Issue (ii): Whether a mother, not being a legal guardian, could validly convey her minor children's interest in immovable property to bind the infants.

Analysis: Under Mahomedan law, a mother is not the natural guardian of her minor child's property. A person who merely has charge of the minor, without legal guardianship, has no power to deal with the minor's immovable property so as to create an enforceable title against the infant. The authorities relied upon drew a distinction between authorized guardians and unauthorized persons, and limited the latter's powers to narrow exceptional situations not extending to the transfer of immovable property in the present case. A transferee under such an unauthorized sale cannot resist ejectment by the infant, because the transfer conveys no enforceable interest.

Conclusion: This issue was decided against the plaintiffs, and the conveyance of the minors' shares was held ineffective.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs succeeded only to the extent of Zohra's own share, but failed as to the shares of the minor children. The decree was therefore varied to that extent and the appeal otherwise failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Mahomedan law, an unauthorized person in charge of a minor's person or property cannot validly transfer the minor's immovable property so as to bind the infant, and an acknowledgment of children by the deceased father can found a legal presumption of legitimacy and inheritance in favour of the mother and children.

---