Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-004516-004517 – 2023 |
| Diary Number | 13302/2012 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing law |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms precedents on TP Act and Muslim succession |
| Type of Law | Civil – Transfer of Property Act; Mohammedan Law of Succession |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that an agreement to sell does not itself transfer any interest or title in immovable property; only a registered deed of conveyance under Sections 54–55 TP Act can do so. Consequently, land under an unregistered agreement remained vested in the deceased and formed part of his matruka estate. The distribution of such estate follows the Quranic shares and Mulla’s classification of sharers and residuaries, with the wife entitled to 1/4th where no child exists. Nemo dat quod non habet applies to bare agreements and post-death sale deeds cannot exclude property from intestate succession. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The deceased, Chand Khan, left two plots (Gut No. 107 S.No. 22/1–22/3; Gut No. 126). His widow sued for ¾ share as matruka property under Mohammedan law. Defendant claimed part of the land was sold by agreement in 1999 and another sold in life-time to a fourth party. The trial court excluded the agreed-sale portions; the first appellate court restored the widow’s full claim; the High Court affirmed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that an agreement to sell (unregistered) does not transfer title and thus cannot remove property from a deceased Muslim’s estate.
- Reaffirms that only a registered sale deed vests ownership under Sections 54–55 TP Act.
- Highlights that all immovable property of the deceased becomes matruka and is distributed per Quranic shares and Mulla’s classification.
- Emphasises nemo dat quod non habet: an unregistered agreement or post-death conveyance cannot defeat intestate rights.
- Lawyers can cite this decision to resist attempts to exclude estate property via bare agreements in succession disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Nature of Agreement to Sell: Relied on Section 54 TP Act and precedents (Suraj Lamp, Narandas Karsondas, Rambhau Gajre) to confirm agreements do not create rights in immovable property.
- Requirement of Registered Conveyance: Only a deed of conveyance, duly stamped and registered, can transfer title.
- Implication for Estate: The disputed plots under unregistered agreements remained vested in the deceased at death and formed part of his matruka estate.
- Definition of Matruka: Matruka refers to the total estate of a deceased Muslim; wills limited to one-third; balance distributed intestate.
- Distribution under Mohammedan Law: Quran IV:12 prescribes shares; Mulla’s Principles classify sharers, residuaries, distant kindred. Wife’s share, absent children, is ¼.
- Application of Nemo Dat: A party cannot transfer better title than it possesses; unregistered agreements and post-death deeds cannot exclude property from succession.
- Conclusion: First Appellate Court and High Court correctly held the entire estate, including agreed-sale portions, as matruka.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Widow)
- The entire property left by Chand Khan is matruka and she is entitled to ¾ share.
- Bare agreements to sell do not vest title or exclude land from the estate.
- Post-death sale deeds cannot defeat intestate succession.
Respondent (Brother)
- A portion of the land was sold by agreement during the deceased’s lifetime and another by sale deed, leaving nothing for partition.
- The widow’s suit should exclude these portions from her claim.
Factual Background
Chand Khan died issueless owning two land parcels (Gut No. 107 S.No. 22/1–22/3; Gut No. 126). His widow sued for partition, claiming ¾ under Mohammedan succession. The brother contended the lands had been sold by agreement or deed before and after the death. The trial court excluded agreed-sale land; the first appellate court and the High Court restored the full estate as matruka.
Statutory Analysis
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Section 54: sale of immovable property only by registered instrument; agreements create no interest.
- Section 55: stipulates requirements of sale deed.
- Section 53-A: limited protection of possession, not of title.
- Mohammedan Law of Succession
- Quran IV:12: sets out shares for spouse, children, siblings.
- Mulla’s Principles: classify heirs into sharers, residuaries, distant kindred.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed