Dismissed

Mujib Rehman and Ors. v. Smt.Mariyam and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2021SA/196/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court at Bilaspur dismissed the appeal in limine. The appellants, legal heirs of a deceased son, challenged the first appellate court's decision to modify the trial decree and allot property shares based on the Hanafi Law of Inheritance. The court found no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to the other side.

Mujib Rehman and Ors. Vs Smt.Mariyam and Ors. — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 196 of 2011

¶5

1.Mujib Rehman S/o Late Ashiq, Aged about 40 years.

¶6

2.Mohd. Siraj S/o Late Ashiq, Aged about 38 years.

¶7

3.Smt. Rabiya W/o Late Ashiq, Aged about 60 years.

¶8

All are R/o Village Zunapara, Tahsil Baikunthpur,
Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

 ---Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. Smt. Mariyam W/o Mohd. Ishahar, Aged about 44 years.

¶12

2. Smt. Fatima D/o Mohd. Sobrati, Aged about 40 years.

¶13

Both are by Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village
Bargidih, Tahsil Lundra, Distt. Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

--- Respondents/Defendants

¶16

For Appellants:-Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate
For Respondents 1 & 2:-Mr. Vinod Ku. Pandey, Advocate
For State:-Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

10/03/2021

¶20

1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second

¶21

¶22

appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
against the impugned judgment and decree passed
by the first appellate Court modifying the
judgment and decree of the trial Court allotting
shares in the suit property which the parties
are entitled to get.

¶23

2.Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that the
first appellate Court has committed illegality
in modifying the well-reasoned judgment of the
trial Court, as such, the appeal deserves to be
admitted by formulating substantial question of
law.

¶24

3.Plaintiff filed a suit stating inter alia that
they, being the legal heirs of son of Sobaraati
namely Ashiq, are entitled to get 3/4th share in
the suit property and defendants No. 1 and 2,
being the daughters of Sobaraati, would get 1/4th
share in the suit property, which the trial
Court accepted and granted decree as claimed by
the plaintiffs, but on appeal being preferred by
defendants No. 1 and 2, learned first appellate
Court modified the decree of the trial Court
holding that share has not been alloted in
accordance with 'Hanifi Law of Inheritance'.

¶25

¶26

4. The suit property was originally held by Sobaraati. He and his wife Najeeran Bibi both have died. They had one son namely Ashiq who has also died and plaintiffs are legal heirs of Ashiq whereas defendants No. 1 and 2 are daughters of Sobaraati and Najeeran Bibi. Parties are Sunni Muslims.

¶27

5. Learned first appellate Court has held that parties, being Sunni Muslims, are governed by 'Hanifi Law of Inheritance' and in accordance with that, widow of Sobaraati namely Najeeran Bibi, being 'sharer', would get 1/8^th share in the suit property and out of the remaining 7/8^th share, plaintiffs will be entitled to 2/3^rd share, being the legal heirs of son of Sobaraati and defendants No. 1 and 2 will be entitled to 1/3^rd share in the suit property, being the daughters of Sobaraati and accordingly, modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

¶28

6. The modification of the decree of the trial Court done by the first appellate Court is in accordance with the principles as contained in 'Chapter 7' of 'Hanifi Law of Inheritance' wherein it has clearly been provided that widow would be 'sharer' and would get 1/8^th share in

¶29

¶30

the property of her husband and the son and
daughter would be 'residuaries' and the son
would get 2/3rd share in the remaining 7/8th
share of the property whereas the daughter would
get 1/3rd share in the remaining property.

¶31

7.As such, the said finding recorded by the first
appellate Court that widow of Mohd. Sobaraati
namely Najeeran Bibi would get 1/8th share in the
suit property (which she has already alienated
to defendants No. 1 and 2) and plaintiffs would
get 2/3rd share in the remaining property and
defendants No. 1 and 2 would jointly get 1/3rd
share in the remaining property is a finding of
fact based on material available on record which

¶32

is neither perverse nor contrary to law. I do
not find any merit in the appeal warranting
admission by formulating substantial question of
law.

¶33

8.The second appeal, being devoid of merits,
deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in
limine without notice to the other side.

¶34

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶35

Harneet

Mujib Rehman and Ors. v. Smt.Mariyam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujib Rehman and Ors. v. Smt.Mariyam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budharu (Dead) through Lrs Vs (a) Smt. Puniya Bai (Dead)

Mahamani Bai and Ors. Vs Makhmohan and Ors.

Shabbir Husain (Petitioner in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gandhi Behra (Dead) Vs Vidyamati

Madan Lal Sharma Vs Comm. Municipal Corp. Bhilai and Ors.

Narayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh