A dispute over the validity of a gift deed executed by Mrs. Jessica Iqbal Lukmani in favor of the petitioner, concerning a beach house and 1/3rd share in properties located in Alibaug, Maharashtra. The petitioner claims that the gift deed was valid under Mohammedan law, and he sought to mutate his name in the revenue records. Respondents, including Mrs. Lukmani’s son, contested the validity of the gift, alleging lack of delivery of possession and questioning the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to decide on the faith and status of Mrs. Lukmani.

The Bombay High Court evaluated whether the revenue authorities had the jurisdiction to determine the faith of Mrs. Lukmani and whether the requirements for a valid gift under Mohammedan law were met. The Court concluded that such matters, particularly concerning the determination of faith and the validity of a gift deed, are within the jurisdiction of civil courts, not revenue authorities. The Court set aside the order of the Revenue Minister and maintained the status quo in the revenue records until the civil court decides the matter.

1. Background of the Dispute:

• Jessica Iqbal Lukmani, a widow who inherited a beach house and a 1/3rd share in other properties from her deceased husband, executed a gift deed in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner claims the gift deed, executed on November 21, 2003, was valid under Mohammedan law, as it involved an oral declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession.
• Respondent No.6 (biological son of Mrs. Lukmani) contested the mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records, alleging that the gift was invalid, as no actual possession was handed over. He claimed to be the legal heir entitled to the property after Mrs. Lukmani's death.

2. Jurisdictional Challenge:

• The petitioner sought mutation of his name in the land records based on the gift deed. The Tahsildar allowed this mutation, but Respondent No.6, in his capacity as legal guardian, and Respondent No.7 (another family member), filed appeals before higher revenue authorities, challenging this mutation.
• The dispute reached the Revenue Minister, who set aside the order allowing the mutation. The petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to decide on issues related to religious faith or the validity of the gift under Mohammedan law.

3. Contentions of the Parties:

• Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that the essential elements of a valid gift under Mohammedan law—oral declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—were satisfied. He claimed the mutation in his favor was justified and lawful.
• Respondent’s Argument: Respondent No.6 contended that the revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by deciding on the faith of Mrs. Lukmani and questioned the validity of the gift deed. He argued that such matters should be decided by the civil court, not the revenue authorities.

4. Legal Findings and Ratio:

• The High Court held that the revenue authorities did not have the jurisdiction to determine the faith of Mrs. Lukmani or to adjudicate on the validity of the gift deed. It emphasized that these matters are within the purview of civil courts.
• The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate proper delivery of possession, an essential requirement under Mohammedan law, particularly in light of conflicting affidavits.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC):

   • Section 257 - Revision power of the State Government over decisions of revenue authorities.

2. Mental Health Act, 1987:

   • Section 53 - Concerning the appointment of a guardian for persons with mental health issues.

3. Mohammedan Law:

   • Requirements for a valid gift: oral declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession.

4. Key Case Laws Referred:

   • Tabera vs. Ajodhya Prasad and Ors. (1929): Discussing oral gifts under Mohammedan law.
   • Hafeeza Bibi and Ors. vs. Shaikh Farid (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 654: Outlining the essential requirements for a valid gift under Mohammedan law.
   • Hiralal and Others vs. Gajjan and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 285: Establishing the limits of jurisdiction of different courts and authorities.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Bombay High Court held that the revenue authorities, including the Revenue Minister, lacked the jurisdiction to determine issues of religious faith and the validity of gifts under Mohammedan law. These issues fall squarely within the domain of civil courts. The Court emphasized that possession, an essential element of a valid gift under Mohammedan law, must be clearly established, and any disputes concerning such possession and rights must be adjudicated by a competent civil court, not by revenue authorities.