A Muslim cannot bequeath property exceeding one-third without consent from all heirs, rendering such wills invalid if contested; ownership must not exclude necessary parties.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 96 C.P.C. against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.01.2026, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasganj, in Original Suit No. 174 of 2016 ( Mohd. Mubin and another vs. Ateeq Ahmad Kaif and others ), whereby the plaintiffs’ suit seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 24.10.2016, executed by the defendants of the second set in favour of the defendants of the first set, and also seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of the disputed property, has been rejected.

Plaint Case

2. The factual matrix is that the plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 174 of 2016 against defendants nos. 1 to 3, who are referred as defendants of the first set, who have purchased disputed property through sale deed dated 24.10.2016, from defendants no.4 to 13, who are the legal heirs of Mohd. Iliyas and Mohd. Anas, referred as defendants of 2^nd set. Defendant no. 4, Mohd. Uwais is the son of deceased Mohd. Iliyas, and defendants nos. 5 to 13, are the legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Anas.

3. It was averred in the plaint that Mohd. Anas died on 12.10.2015, leaving behind his legal heirs, namely plaintiff no. 1, Mohd. Mubin, and defendants nos. 5 to 13.

4. It was further pleaded that Mohd. Iliyas died on 29.01.2016, leaving behind his son, plaintiff no. 2 Mohd. Parvez, and defendant no. 4 Mohd. Uwais, as well as wife, one more son and nine daughters. However, the said legal heirs were not impleaded as parties to the suit.

5. The plaintiffs further averred that Mohd. Anas and Mohd. Iliyas were close friends, who jointly carried on a handloom business under the name and style of Ajnam Standard Store, Ganjdundwara; M. Textile, Sujawalpur; and Standard Cold Storage, Ganjdundwara, in which they were having 1/2-1/2 ownership.

6. It was further averred that Mohd. Anas and Mohd. Iliyas had jointly purchased through sale deed dated 01.05.2004, a two-storey shopping complex at Kasganj. It was also averred that Mohd. Anas, prior to his death, executed a Will dated 16.08.2015, and similarly, Mohd. Iliyas executed a Will dated 07.01.2016. On the basis of the aforesaid Wills, the plaintiffs became joint owners in possession of an equal half share in the disputed property, in respect of which the defendants have no right, title, or interest.

7. It was further averred that the mother and other siblings of plaintiff no.1, who were arrayed as defendants no.5 to 13 and the siblings of plaintiff no.2 bore enmity towards the plaintiffs, who were trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the disputed property, which was with the plaintiffs.

8. It was further averred that the disputed property, which is in the nature of shops and house was in the possession of the plaintiffs, some of which has been rented regarding which rent receipts have been issued.

9. It was further averred that no formal partition has taken place between the plaintiffs regarding the disputed properties, and after the death of Mohd. Anas and Mohd. Iliyas, the plaintiffs became owner of equal share in the disputed property.

10. It was further averred that the defendants of the second set, who are legal heirs of deceased, Mohd. Iliyas and Mohd. Anas, who are defendants no.4 to 13, have illegally executed the sale deed of the disputed property without any right, title and interest in favour of the defendants of the first set on 24.10.2016,