ORDER

I.A. 13716/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) praying that the ad interim order dated 02.06.2022 passed in I.A. 9391/2022 be additionally extended to the suit properties enlisted at paragraph ‘13’ of this application. It is stated that these properties are also enlisted as paragraph ‘10 (b)’ of the original plaint. The details of the said properties at paragraph 13 of the application are as under: -

“(i) Immovable property no. 5319-20 Gali Petti Wali Sadar Bazar Delhi 110006 comprising Shops No. 5319 A/GF, 5319 B/GF, 5319 C/GF, 5319 1/GF on the ground floor and Shop No. 5320 1/GF on the first floor along with terrace rights; and

(ii) Immovable property bearing no. 5330 Gali Petti Wali Sadar Bazar Delhi 110006 comprising Shops No. 5330 10/GF, 5330 10A/GF, 5330 11/GF, 5330 12/GF, 5330 13/GF and 5330 13/GF/1 on the ground floor.”

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Gayatri Puri, learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 6 accepts notice.

3.1. She submits that paragraph ‘10(b)’ of the original plaint comprises of three distinct immovable properties.

3.2. She states that the property i.e., one Godown on Ground Floor and a room on First Floor with its terrace rights of property bearing no. 5346 all situated at Gali Tikke Wali, Churiwalan, Delhi - 110006 has already been disposed of by defendant nos. 1 to 6.

3.3. She states that she reserves her right to file her reply in this application.

4. Learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 6 contends that under Muslim Law grand-children do not inherit the estate of the grandfather. She states that the present suit has been filed for the estate of late Mohd. Arif, who was the grandfather of the plaintiffs. She states that Mohd. Muneer (father) died on 24.03.2014 and Mohd. Arif died on 18.08.2021 (grandfather).

5. She states that the estate of Mohd. Arif will instead devolve upon the legal heirs of his predeceased brothers Mohd. Farooque (died on 05.12.2012) and Mohd. Adil (died on 11.12.2012).

6. In support of her contention, she relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Smt. Ashabi vs. Smt. Faziyabi and Others, (2004 SCC OnLine Kar 327) and judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Amirullah Khan and Others vs. Mohd. Hakumullah Khan and Others, ((1999) 3 SCC 733 at para 4).

7. This Court has perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amirullah Khan (supra). In the said case, the trial court held that the grandchildren of a predeceased son did not acquire any right in the immovable property of the deceased grandfather under the Muslim Law. The Court held that the immovable property devolved upon the surviving sons and daughters of the deceased under the Muslim Law. In the facts of that case, the deceased was survived by sons and daughters as well as grandchildren of the predeceased son.

8. However, in the facts of the case in hand late Mohd. Arif had only one son Mohd. Muneer and no other surviving son or daughter. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the reliance placed by defendants on the judgment of Amirullah Khan (supra) is of no avail.

9. Similarly, in the judgment of Smt. Ashabi vs. Smt. Faziyabi and Others (supra), learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 6, had relied upon paragraph ‘10’ and paragraph ‘12’ of the said judgment, which reads as under: -

“10. It is fairly well settled that the heirs of a Muslim can claim their shares only in what remains, if at all, after all the statutory liabilities have been met out of the property and the debts and valid legacies and death-bed gifts (if any) paid, out of the property of the propositus. A person who according to Muslim law is an heir of the deceased remains so and gets his legal due. He or she cannot be excluded either by other heirs and survivors of the deceased or even under a specific direction left in that behalf by the deceased himself. One can be excluded from inheritance only under a rule of Mus