Abstract

Donatio Mortis Causa and Marz-Ul-Maut are two concepts under the property law and family law which have often been intertwined in their interpretation as well as their application. Even though both these concepts are similar in nature and their application, there are some fundamental differences between them. One of the major differences is that a gift under DMC automatically stands revoked if the donor recovers from his illness, whereas a gift made under MuM continues to operate as a normal gift despite the donor’s recovery. The first half of the paper will be a tracing the historical developments of both DMC and MuM and their application in India. The second part will focus on doing a comparative analysis of both DMC and MuM. This paper attempts to make a case as to why the automatic revocation of a gift under DMC is a much more equitable and reasonable view than the gift made during MuM. The paper shall examine MuM from the perspective of a contract as well as a gift made in a special state of mind and will try to make a case as to why the practice of transforming MuM to Hiba is manifestly arbitrary and unjust.

Keywords