9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Devolution of properties under Inams of two kinds upon the death of Syed Abdulla Inamdar. 2. Claim of co-heirs as to the inheritance of the properties post the abolition of Inams. 3. Interpretation of re-grant of properties after the abolition of Inams. 4. Application of Shariat Law in the devolution of properties. 5. Claim of adverse possession by one of the heirs over a dwelling unit. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with the devolution of properties belonging to Syed Abdulla Inamdar, specifically agricultural lands and a dwelling unit, upon his death. The agricultural lands were assigned to the eldest son, Abubakar, as Inams of two kinds, subject to the rule of primogeniture. The co-heirs, comprising brothers and sisters, claimed a share in the lands and the dwelling unit post the abolition of Inams. The trial court partially decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed the decision, holding that the co-heirs were entitled to their respective shares in the properties. 2. The court analyzed the re-grant of properties to Abubakar after the abolition of Inams under the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955. It was established that the properties, initially impartible due to being Inams, became partible upon re-grant. The court applied the principles of Shariat Law to determine the devolution of the properties among the heirs of Syed Abdulla, emphasizing that the rule of primogeniture no longer applied post the abolition of Inams. 3. The judgment also addressed the claim of adverse possession raised by Abubakar over the dwelling unit owned by Syed Abdulla. While the lower courts ruled in favor of Abubakar, the High Court overturned the decision, noting the lack of specific pleadings regarding hostile and notorious possession. The High Court found that the correct principles of adverse possession were not applied by the lower courts, leading to the dismissal of Abubakar's claim. 4. The court emphasized the uniform application of legal principles, regardless of the religious affiliation of the parties involved. It rejected the argument that different rules should apply based on the religion of the parties, asserting that the intent behind the re-grant of properties was to treat all subjects equally, irrespective of their religious background. 5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The judgment concluded that the co-heirs were entitled to their respective shares in the properties, and the claim of adverse possession over the dwelling unit was not substantiated adequately. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
