The Supreme Court will examine whether Hindu law principles can be applied to inheritance rights under Mohammedan law. As part of a notice issued in a partition case, the bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal ordered:
“The question of seminal importance, which is required to be decided in this case is whether the principles of Hindu law could be applied while deciding the right of inheritance falling under the Mohammedan law.”
In response to this limited legal question, the Court issued a notice.
According to the facts, the Plaintiffs (Sirajuddin and Fayajuddin) are the sons of Defendant No.2 (Riyajuddin) from his first marriage. As a result, they filed a lawsuit for partition claiming their lawful share. Their argument was that Defendant No.2 engaged in illicit intimacy with Defendant No.4 and had two children as a result. In addition, the Plaintiffs as well as their mother were alleged to have been abandoned by Defendant No.2.Defendant No.2 refused to partition the ancestral property when asked by Plaintiffs. In light of this, the instant lawsuit was filed. Following the Trial Court’s dismissal of the same, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the High Court.
During the proceedings in the High Court, Defendant No.2 argued that he had issued a divorce to his initial spouse and had also fulfilled a specific payment obligation for permanent alimony. He asserted that the mother of the Plaintiffs had acknowledged the sum and renounced any claims to the properties. Consequently, it was put forth that the Plaintiffs do not have a legitimate entitlement to any portion.
On the contrary, the Plaintiffs argued that only Kartha has the authority to relinquish. Since the mother is neither a coparcener nor the Kartha, she lacks the ability to renounce the shares of her underage children. Reference was also made to the case of Pasagadugula Narayana Rao v. Pasagadugula Rama Murthy, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that:
“Any relinquishment or release of a coparcener share can only be by way of a written instrument and in the absence, thereof a plea of release or relinquishment of share cannot be entertained.”
In alignment with this perspective, the High Court concluded that the mother of the Plaintiffs cannot waive the rights of her underage children. Consequently, the Court denied Defendant No.2’s plea for relinquishment of their rights and granted the appeal.
“After meticulously scanning the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the right of the plaintiffs, who are grandchildren of defendant No. 1, over the ancestral property cannot be legally relinquished by their mother on receipt of some amount towards permanent alimony.”
Contesting this, the current appeal has been filed with the Supreme Court by the father/Defendant No. 2. Their contention is that the High Court made a mistake in applying the principles relevant to the Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family to resolve the partition dispute within a Muslim family.