“No Ancestral Property Concept Under Mohammedan Law”: Gujarat HC Clarifies

The Gujarat High Court has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the application of Mohammedan law in inheritance disputes, holding that under Muslim personal law there is no concept of ancestral property or birthright and that an heir’s right arises only upon the death of the propositus.

At the same time, the Court refused to reject a daughter’s suit for administration of her deceased parents’ estate at the threshold, observing that limitation and exclusion in such cases are mixed questions of law and fact requiring trial.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice J. C. Doshi pronounced the judgment in a batch of Civil Revision Applications and Appeals from Order arising from a long-standing property dispute in Vadodara.

The Court upheld the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but carefully re-examined the scope of interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. 

The dispute concerns a daughter who filed Special Civil Suit No. 132 of 2021 seeking administration of the estate of her deceased father and mother.

She claimed a share in several immovable properties, alleging that some were purchased by her father either in his own name or in the names of her brothers from his earnings, while others were acquired from the sale of ancestral lands. She also sought a declaration that multiple sale deeds executed by her brothers were not binding on her, and alternatively claimed Rs. 50 crores as compensation in lieu of her share.

The defendants, primarily her brothers and subsequent purchasers, argued that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. They relied on revenue mutation entries made in 1984 following the father’s death, a family arrangement allegedly executed in 1983, and decades of transactions and development, including a residential project at Tandalja.

According to them, the plaintiff had acquiesced for nearly four decades and could not now disturb settled titles.

While addressing the plea under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court reiterated that rejection of a plaint is a drastic power and that the court must look only at the averments in the plaint. The plaintiff had pleaded that she became aware of her effective exclusion only when certain properties were developed and her share was allegedly denied despite assurances.

The Court held that in such circumstances, the question of when exclusion became known, relevant under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, cannot be decided without evidence. Accordingly, the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold. 

However, the most significant aspect of the judgment lies in its detailed exposition of Mohammedan law. The Court emphasised that under Muslim law, inheritance “descends and not ascends,” and there is no concept of coparcenary or joint family property as understood in Hindu law.

Referring to the well-settled maxim nemo est heres viventis (a living person has no heir), the Court observed that an heir apparent has only a mere chance of succession (spes successionis) during the lifetime of the owner. Rights crystallise only upon death.

The Court noted that the plaintiff’s pleadings describing properties as “ancestral” or “joint family” must be examined in light of Muslim personal law, which does not recognise a birthright in property.

An heir’s right arises only upon the death of the deceased and only in respect of the estate left behind after payment of funeral expenses, debts and other prior charges in accordance with classical principles of administration of a Muslim’s estate.

In this context, the High Court highlighted that revenue entries do not by themselves confer or extinguish title; they are primarily for fiscal purposes.

Nevertheless, longstanding entries, coupled with transactions and conduct, may have evidentiary value. The effect of such entries, the validity of the alleged family arrangement, and the true character of the properties would require full trial.

Turning to the injunction order, the Court reiterated the limited scope of appellate interference with discretionary orders, citing the settled principle that an appellate court will interfere only where discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

While protecting the plaintiff’s right to pursue her claim, the Court examined whether the trial court had properly applied the three-fold test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in the specific context of Muslim inheritance law.

Significantly, the High Court cautioned that interim orders must not proceed on assumptions inconsistent with Mohammedan law, particularly the idea of birthright or automatic coparcenary interest.

At the same time, it recognised that if properties are alienated during pendency of the suit, it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The Court therefore balanced the equities, sustaining the maintainability of the suit while refining the scope of interim protection.

The ruling is an important reiteration that personal law principles materially shape civil disputes. In Muslim inheritance matters, courts must be careful not to import concepts alien to Mohammedan law, even while applying procedural doctrines under the CPC and the Limitation Act.

Case Title: Yusufbhai Walibhai Patel & Ors. v. Zubedaben Abbasbhai Patel & Ors.

Bench: Justice J. C. Doshi

Date of Judgment: 10.02.2026