Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Sk. Md. Yasin – Appellant
Versus
Sk. Asraf Ali, Since Deceased Represented by Asmani Begum – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been directed against judgement and decree dated 3rd April 1984 passed in Title Appeal no. 11 of 1980. By the impugned judgment the learned court below affirmed the order of dismissal of the suit passed by the Trial court in Title suit no. 157 of 1977 dated 28th November 1979.
2. Plaintiff’s case in brief is that predecessor of the plaintiff Sk Md. Yasin filed a suit for declaration of his 16 anas share in all the seven item mentioned properties described in the schedule to the plaint. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondent are brothers by relation and who are sons of Umed Ali. Plaint case is Plaintiff got Rs. 20/- in one ceremony called ‘mukhdekhani’ at the time of his birth and Rs. 40 at the time of another religious ceremony called ‘sunnat’ as gift from his relatives and said money was lying deposited with his father. Plaintiffs specific case is, he purchased the property mentioned in item no. 1 of the schedule to the plaint from that money lying deposited to his father in 1329 BS.
3. Further case of the plaintiff is that from the earnings, derived from the said purchased property
The court ruled that while joint family properties are not recognized under Muslim Law as in Hindu law, acquisitions through joint efforts can establish joint ownership if sufficiently proven.
Though the concept of joint family property is not recognized, the concept of commensality is a circumstance which can have its own importance while considering the case of gift
(1) Principle that there cannot be a partial partition is not an absolute one – It admits of exceptions. Properties not in possession of co-sharers/coparceners being omitted cannot result in a suit f....
Registered partition deed between brothers under Mohammedan law creates valid title; High Court cannot re-appreciate facts absent substantial question of law in second appeal.
The judicial presumption of joint ownership requires proof of a family nucleus, and mere existence of a joint family does not automatically classify all properties as joint.
Legal heirs are entitled to inherit property regardless of its ancestral or self-acquired nature, and claims of adverse possession require acknowledgment of ownership by the opposing party.
A gift under Mohammedan Law is valid without registration if accompanied by declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
Inheritance rights under Mohammedan Law are individual, arising only upon death, eliminating claims of joint family property made prematurely based on shared assumptions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
