J&K High Court Reaffirms Quranic Injunctions, Secures Muslim Daughter's Inheritance Rights After 43-Year Legal Battle

“It is from Verse 11 of Surah An-Nisa, a duty, obligation, command, ordain, injunction to assign/give the share to the daughter(s). Even its plain reading, in my opinion, bestows right of inheritance first to a female, then to a male survivor”, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed.

The case revolved around a prolonged dispute over property rights initiated by the late Mst. Mukhti, a daughter seeking her share of her father's estate.

Mukhti, the biological daughter of Munawar Ganai, filed a suit asserting her entitlement to one-third of her father's property under Muslim Personal Law. However, the suit was dismissed due to technical grounds, namely her failure to explicitly claim possession.

Following her demise, her children pursued the claim, leading to a Division Bench judgment in 1996 that affirmed Mukhti's right to inherit. Despite this, technical hurdles and a series of flawed decisions by revenue authorities delayed the execution of the judgment.

The Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner not only ignored the binding Division Bench ruling but also erroneously excluded Mst. Mukhti from her rightful inheritance. This forced her children to approach the High Court for justice.

Delivering a scathing critique of the systemic obstacles faced by the petitioners, including the misuse of procedural technicalities Justice Koul reaffirmed the Quranic injunctions outlined in Surah An-Nisa, Verse 11, which unequivocally provide daughters a share in their parents' inheritance. The court observed that inheritance rights are an essential aspect of Islamic law, designed to ensure fairness and equity.

The court highlighted that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice. Justice Koul emphasised,

"Whenever there is a conflict between substantial justice and hyper-technicality, substantial justice is to be preferred to avoid defeating the ends of justice."

A key part of the court's discussion focused on the concept of co-ownership as Justice Koul clarified,

"Even if one of the co-sharers is in possession of the property, his possession cannot be considered adverse against other co-sharers. The right of the latter will not be lost by the mere fact that one co-sharer is in exclusive possession."

The same principle applies to heirs of a deceased Muslim, where possession by one heir is deemed to be on behalf of all co-heirs, the court explained, highlighting the rights of the petitioners remained intact despite the prolonged litigation.

Condemning the selective application of Islamic principles by those who diligently practice religious rituals yet deny inheritance rights to women Justice Koul noted the disturbing trend of invoking customs to sideline Quranic commandments.

"It is painful to see a brother argue against his sister's rightful share, relying on procedural absurdities. Such contentions are not only unacceptable but deprecatory.", hd remarked.

Furthermore the court referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments, such as Sawarni v. Inder Kaur (1996) and Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), to underline that mutation entries in revenue records neither create nor extinguish ownership rights. They merely serve fiscal purposes and cannot override the substantive rights of lawful heirs.

In view of these observations the court quashed the orders of the Settlement Officer and Commissioner, declaring them void for contravening the Division Bench's 1996 judgment. Justice Koul directed the Revenue Department to implement the judgment within three months, granting Mukhti's children their mother's rightful share. In cases where third-party interests may have been created, the court ordered equivalent compensation in land or market value, the court concluded.

Case Title: Ghulam Ahmad Bhat Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 352

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment