Muslim Law Doesn't Recognize Joint Family, Brother Can't Sell Land Belonging To Minor Siblings: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that under Muslim Law interest of each heir is separate and distinct wherein the brother of four minor siblings cannot act as their guardian and sell off land belonging to the minors as under this law theory of representation or joint family is not recognized. 

In doing so the court upheld the plaintiff's possession over a land parcel for 30-33 years, coupled with the defendants' failure to assert their claim within limitation, holding that she had perfected her right, title and interest despite the sale deed being void in respect of the four-fifth share belonging to four minors. 

Justice Kalyan Rai Surana observed:

"The Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshaw Mulla does not contain anything from which it can be said that there exists a concept of joint family under Mohammedan Law. Yet, existence of fiduciary relationship exists. The High Court of Telengana, in the case of Mohd. Naseeruddin Ahmed Khan (Died) v. Mohd. Muzefferuddin Mahmood Khan...Mohammedan heirs are not coparceners and he has merely a right to defend a minimum share in each part of the estate. In other words, the concept of joint family is reign to Muslim Law. Further, Mohammedan Law does not recognise theory of representation. Interest of each heir is separate and distinct. There is nothing contrary to law for Mohammedan adult male members of a family carrying on trade for the benefit of all the interested members, including minors and females. When the adult male member holds assets for carrying on business on behalf of all the persons interested, then he stands in fiduciary relationship to such other persons. If the plaint makes out a case of partnership or agency or fiduciary relationship, which is permissible to contend that the property purchased in the name of one is for the benefit of all"

The observation came in an appeal against appellate court's judgment affirming the trial court's decree declaring the plaintiff's title over the suit land and granting recovery of vacant possession.

The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of 'whether the lower appellate court had committed a grave error of law in holding that the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land although the sale deed by which she purchased it was void'.

The plaintiff's case was that she had purchased parcel of land through a registered sale deed executed in 1975 by one Nagar Ali for himself and as guardian of his four minor siblings. She claimed that she had remained in possession from the date of purchase, cultivated the land through adhiars or labourers and was also mutated in respect of the suit land.

The defendants claimed that the sale deed was illegal, fraudulent and void ab initio since Ali was not their guardian and no guardianship certificate had been obtained. They also claimed that they had never sold the land, had no knowledge of the registered sale deed until receipt of summons in the suit and had remained in possession since the death of their father.

The High Court held that the finding that the sale deed was void in respect of the four-fifth share was the correct appreciation of Mohammedan Law, which did not recognise Nagar Ali, the elder brother of the four minor siblings, to act as their guardian so as to validly sell their land.

“Therefore, it is seen that the finding of the learned Trial Court, as modified by the finding by the learned first appellate court that the sale deed was void in respect of 4/5th share is the correct appreciation of Mohammedan Law, which does not recognize Nagar Ali, son of Yad Ali, who is also the elder brother of other four minor siblings, to act as their guardian so as to validly sell-off the land covered by the registered sale deed no. 2913/75 dated 18.02.1975.”

The Court further noted that the sale deed was valid so far as Nagar Ali's one-fifth share was concerned. It concurred with the concurrent finding that the plaintiff had proved that she was in possession of the suit land since purchasing it and had cultivated it through adhiars.

The Court then referred to Section 27 of the Limitation Act and noted that the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the suit land and had filed the suit for recovery of khas possession within limitation. It also noted that the defendants' plea that they came to know about the sale deed only after receipt of summons and obtaining its certified copy had been disbelieved, and their counter-claim was held to be barred by limitation.

“Accordingly, both the learned Courts had held that the counter-claim of the defendants was barred by limitation. Therefore, the concurrent finding on issue nos. 6 to 11 by both the learned Courts is not found to be incorrect and/or perverse.”

The High Court further found that the appellants had failed to show any error in the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence by the courts below.

“The appellants have not been able to demonstrate that the learned trial court or the learned first appellate court had committed any error in appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record or that any part of their respective finding on any issue was incorrect or perverse, for not considering the pleadings and evidence or for taking into consideration any extraneous materials on record.”

Answering the substantial question of law, the Court held, “Accordingly, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered by holding that the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court are not found to have committed any grave error of law in holding that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land.”

The second appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Case No.: RSA/22/2012

Case Title: On the Death of Nur Mohammad All His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Legal Heirs of Late Tarubala Saha & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 147

Click Here To Read the Judgement