Property Partition - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law

31Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law

The Supreme Court affirmed that an agreement to sell does not transfer title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Property remains part of the deceased's matruka (estate) until a registered sale deed is executed. Inheritance under Muslim law applies to the entire estate, with the widow entitled to a one-fourth share as a sharer, absent descendants. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the inheritance of Chand Khan's property between his widow, Zoharbee (appellant), and his brother, Imam Khan (respondent). Chand Khan died issueless, leaving behind two plots of land. Zoharbee claimed the entire property as matruka (estate) and, under Muslim law, sought a three-fourths share as the surviving spouse. Imam Khan contended that one plot had been transferred v...

Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respo...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Ends Gender Bias Tribal Women Now Have Equal Rights to Ancestral Property!

The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of any established custom or law governing inheritance for Scheduled Tribes, the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 must apply. The Court held that denying tribal women equal inheritance rights violates Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution, as discrimination based on gender lacks a rational nexus. The judgment overruled the lower courts’ dismissal of the claim, affirming that legal heirs of tribal women are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property unless a contrary custom is proven. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over the inheritance rights of a tribal woman, Dhaiya, belonging to the Gond Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh. The appellants,...