The Supreme Court defines matruka property and the role of a Will in inheritance. Learn how Muslim law succession rules govern the distribution of property left behind by a deceased.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently delivered an important judgment clarifying the concept of matruka property and its distribution under Muslim inheritance law. This decision sheds light on how property left behind by a deceased person is treated, particularly when disputes arise among heirs.
What is Matruka Property?
In simple terms, matruka property refers to property left behind by a deceased person. The Supreme Court, referring to authoritative sources like John T. Platts’ Dictionary and the Rekhta Dictionary, explained that the term is of Arabic origin and denotes “abandoned from possession” or “inherited wealth and property.”
The Court emphasized that matruka property is limited to property left by the deceased and nothing beyond it.
Distribution of Matruka Property
The Apex Court reaffirmed that when it comes to devolution of matruka property, the deceased’s Will takes precedence, subject to the limits imposed by Muslim law:
- A Will cannot exceed one-third of the estate.
- A Will cannot ordinarily benefit an heir without the consent of other heirs.
After satisfying the Will, the remaining property is distributed according to intestate succession rules under Muslim Law.
Case Background
The dispute arose after the death of Chand Khan, whose surviving spouse, Zoharbee and brother Imam Khan contested ownership of the property he left behind.
- The plaintiff (Zoharbee) claimed that, as Chand Khan died issueless, she was entitled to 3/4th of the total property, with the remaining 1/4th going to the brother.
- The defendant (Imam Khan) argued that parts of the property had already been transferred during Chand Khan’s lifetime, so they were no longer subject to inheritance.
The Civil Court partly sided with the defendant, while the First Appellate Court reversed it, granting Zoharbee a 3/4th share. The High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, leading to the Supreme Court’s review.
Legal Observations
The Supreme Court made several important observations:
Agreement to Sell vs. Ownership
An Agreement to Sell does not transfer ownership; the property remains with the original owner until the sale is completed.
Hence, even property subject to an agreement remains matruka property upon the owner’s death.
Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
The Court invoked the principle “nemo dat quod non habet”, no one can transfer a better title than they themselves hold.
This meant that a sale executed by an heir could only apply to the share they legally owned.
Wife’s Share in Absence of Children
Under Muslim law, if the deceased has no children, the wife’s share increases to 1/4th of the estate.
The Supreme Court thus dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court and First Appellate Court decisions.
Interestingly, the Court also expressed concern over the translation of judgments. It highlighted that legal words are crucial, and translation errors can misrepresent the facts and reasoning. Proper attention must be given to ensure the true meaning of judgments is conveyed in English.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Ajay Majithia, AOR Shekhar Kumar
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Vatsalya Vigya, Gautami Yadav, Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Yash Singhania
Case Title:
ZOHARBEE & ANR Versus IMAM KHAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4516-4517 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT