The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday rejected the plea of a Muslim woman challenging a 1983 family arrangement to claim a share in the immovable properties her brothers received from their father, holding that the concept of “a joint family” under Hindu succession laws is alien to Mohammedan law. The high court held that succession in Muslim law was “individual” as members of the Muslim family living in “commensality” do not form a joint family like Hindus.
In a 50-page judgment, Justice J C Doshi held that in Mohammedan law, “there is not, as there is in Hindu Law, any presumption that the acquisitions of the several members are made for the benefit of the joint family” and so, the acquisition of the property by some members “will not deemed to be for the benefit of all of them jointly”.
The court was hearing a bunch of pleas and revision applications filed by the descendants of the deceased, Valimohammad Kaduji and his wife, the late Ayesha.
The original complaint was filed by one of Kaduji’s two daughters. She had sought “relief of administration” (receiving legal share in property) of the estate of her deceased father, which had been settled as per a family arrangement dated April 25, 1983. As per the arrangement, the plaintiff and her sister were entitled to an amount of Rs 30,000 in lieu of their share in the estate of their father. As per the facts of the case, the sister had already relinquished her rights.
The judgment notes that the plaintiff moved the courts contending that her brothers—who are also related to the plaintiff as inter-se in-laws by way of the marriage of their son and daughter with each other—had falsely assured her of a share from properties located in Akota and Tandalja area of Vadodara city, but instead “in connivance with other defendants”, started the development of a residential complex titled Jumeirah Park in Tandalja.
While a trial court had passed an order in 2024 in favour of the plaintiff, the advocates for the defendants submitted to the court that the plaintiff had “remained silent for 37 years” and only demanded her share when her brothers and their sons decided to develop the upcoming real estate property.
“Such pressure tactics clearly suffer from inordinate delay and latches… It is further argued that if at all plaintiffs succeed in the suit, her share is so negligent that it can be compensated in terms of money, which is already recognized in the family settlement (of 1983),” the defendants submitted in the court.
Mohammedan law unlike Hindu law of succession
Rejecting the grounds for the plea of the woman that the estate in contention was “ancestral property”, the court delved into the tenets of Mohammedan law. The high court order states, “In thus, the base of the suit claiming the relief of administration as well as discretionary relief… revolves around two concepts, vis the concept of ‘joint family property’ and ‘ancestral property’… Plaintiff, by this kind of the pleading implies that a joint family was existing and father, in order to avoid the operation of the ‘Tenancy Act’… purchased the parcels of lands in the name of the sons… to benefit the family. The concepts pleaded by the plaintiff very much would be available to her, provided that she is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Law, but here is a case where a Muslim female claims and contends the concept of joint family property, which is wholly not available to her.”
The court held that the parties were governed by the principle of Mohammedan Law, to which the concept of ‘joint family’ as well as coparcenary property (where members acquire interest by birth) are foreign, as in Mohammedan law, right to succeed is “nothing more than a mere spes i.e. mere chance of succession”.
Serious error: HC on trial court injunction granted to woman
Stating that the trial court had committed a “serious error” and delving into the definition of ‘perversity’ to refer to the injunction granted by the trial court to the plaintiff, the high court said, “(The trial court) had failed to apply the mind that parties to the dispute are governed by the principles of Mohammedan law, where concept of ‘joint family property’ or ‘ancestral property’ are totally alien, and thus, when it is established on record that the learned trial court has failed to refer the provisions of the law governing the succession of the parties being Muslim, and reached to a particular conclusion to grant interim-relief, is to be defined as a conclusion arrived at by the wrong way or distorted from the righteous and logical conclusion.”
The high court also noted that the trial court had ignored that the plaintiff had not challenged the original family settlement executed in 1983. The high court judgment also cited the principle of Mohammedan law, ‘Nemo est heres viventis’, which implies that a living person has no heir, and the plaintiff could have claimed her right in case a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties.
The high court said, “The relationship between the members of the Mohammedan family is distinct from that of the members of the Hindu family. The presumption of the Hindu law regarding the joint family, joint family property or joint family funds has got to be completely forgotten in deciding cases between the parties who are Mohammedans… Had the plaintiff made out such a case of partnership or agency or fiduciary relationship, he/she can take advantage of the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act and provisions arising out of the relationship of partners or principal or agent to claim the share in the property.”
The court was hearing a bunch of pleas and revision applications filed by the descendants of the deceased, Valimohammad Kaduji and his wife, the late Ayesha. 
Share
