NASEEBAN Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD
This petition for special leave to appeal concerns the validity of a gift made by a grandfather to his minor grandson, specifically whether the gift remained inchoate due to the alleged non-delivery of possession. The donor had executed a registered deed explicitly stating that possession had been delivered. The respondent, a minor, was residing with the donor, who was also providing for his maintenance, while the respondent's father held interests adverse to the minor. The High Court concluded that formal delivery of possession was not required in these circumstances, as the donor effectively held the property on behalf of the minor donee after the execution of the deed. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no reason to disagree with the High Court's reasoning regarding the completion of the gift under the specific facts of the case. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that in cases involving a grandfather and a minor grandson living together, the donor's continued possession can be construed as possession on behalf of the donee.
- Is formal delivery of possession necessary for a gift to a minor grandson when the donor is the grandfather and the minor resides with him?
- Can a donor's possession be construed as possession on behalf of a minor donee after the execution of a registered gift deed?
- Does a recital in a registered gift deed regarding the delivery of possession carry legal weight in determining the completion of a gift?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- The only question raised in this petition for special leave to appeal is whether the gift made by Abdullah, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, in favour of the respondent remained inchoate on account of non-delivery of possession. It may be mentioned that Abdullah was the real paternal-grandfather of the respondent. At the time of making the gift the respondent was a minor. The gift was made by a registered deed in which a clear recital was made to the effect that the donor had delivered the possession to the donee. So far as the gift was concerned, the interest of the father of the respondent was adverse to him. The respondent was living with the donor who was also bearing his maintenance expenses. Taking into consideration all these facts, the High Court held that to complete the gift it was not necessary for the grandfather to formally deliver the possession of the property to the donee, for, after the execution of the deed the grandfather was to be treated as holding the property on behalf of his minor grandson. In the peculiar circumstances of this case we are unable to disagree with the High Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
2. M.I./N-49/S Petition dismissed.