Inheritance matters are now strictly governed by Muslim Personal Law, and the status of being an adopted son or a khananisheen daughter would not determine the rights of the parties in the matter of inheritance.

Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.

1. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 have locked horns in respect of the immovable property left behind by one Salam Rather. The property of deceased Salam Rather was mutated in favour of the petitioner vide order on mutation No. 923 dated 21st November, 1988. In the mutation order, the petitioner is stated to be adopted son of deceased Salam Rather. In view of the material placed on record, it appears that order on mutation No. 789 U/S 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act, and order on mutation No. 791 U/S 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act, was also passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the landed property of deceased Salam Rather.

2. Respondent No. 3 challenged these mutation orders in a statutory appeal which was decided by the appropriate authority on 26th April, 2007 and both the orders passed in Section 4 and 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act, were set aside and matter was send to Tehsildar Kangan and he was directed that after conducting an enquiry he shall pass orders about the property of deceased Salam Rather in favour of his legal heirs. This order has attained finality having not been challenged by present petitioner.

3. The order on mutation No. 923 was also challenged by respondent No. 3. The said order has been set aside by the Joint Financial Commissioner (AR) vide his order dated 27th November, 2012. The Tehsildar Kangan has been directed to attest the mutation afresh as per prevailing law. The attestation on mutation is directed to be done on spot in presence of interested parties. It is this order which is called in question in the writ petition.

4. Mr. M.A. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Joint Financial Commissioner (AR), in the impugned order, has recorded finding that respondent No. 3 is khananisheen daughter and is entitled to a share from the landed property of her uncle Salam Rather.

5. Learned counsel submitted that there was no basis or material available with the Joint Financial commissioner (AR) to record such a finding.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that after coming into force, the J&K Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 2007 (for short " Act of 2007"), the inheritance matters are strictly governed by the Muslim Personal Law.

7. Learned counsel submitted that Mst. Khurshi predeceased Salam Rather, her brother thus respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to inherit Salam Rather under Muslim Law.

8. Learned counsel prayed that this petition be disposed of in the light of the submissions made at bar.

9. Mr. G.A. Lone, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 raised objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of dismissal of the suit which was instituted by him in the Court of Munsiff Kangan against respondent No. 3, inasmuch as, he has not brought to the notice of the Court that the suit was dismissed prior to filing of writ petition.

10. Learned counsel in order to support his contention referred to Annexure R4 of the reply affidavit to show that the suit has been dismissed on 30th October, 2010, whereas the petitioner has placed on record of the writ petition copy of interim injunction order passed in the said suit by Munsiff Kangan on 14th June, 2007.

11. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to Para 36 of the Judgment of Supreme Court reported in case titled K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners claim of being adopted son of deceased Salam Rather, after coming into force the Act of 2007 cannot be accepted and it is only Muslim Personal Law which would determine the rights of the parties in the matter of inheritance.

13. Learned counsel submitted that the claim of the petitioner of being an adopted son and seeking inheritance on the basis of that status will no longer help him in view of the law laid down by the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) Bench