Holding

HA is entitled to a 1/6 share (shared equally between his widow and daughter), P‑2 is entitled to the entire 1/3 residue of D‑5's estate, and substitution of legal representatives is permissible without abatement.

Summary

The case involved a partition suit concerning the inheritance of Haji Ishan Ali (HA) who died in 1955, leaving a widow, two daughters, and three sons. The High Court had held that property purchased in the name of HA's son Sabul Hassan (SH) belonged solely to SH, raising the question of whether HA was a sharer in SH's estate and whether HA's daughter (P‑2) was entitled to a share in the estate of another daughter (D‑5) who died pending suit. The Supreme Court applied the inheritance rules from Mulla's Principles of Mohamedan Law, finding that HA was entitled to a 1/6 share, to be divided equally between his widow and daughter, and that P‑2 was entitled to the entire 1/3 residue of D‑5's estate. The Court also addressed a procedural issue concerning the delayed appearance of legal representatives, holding that substitution was permissible and no abatement applied. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the trial court for distribution of shares according to the declared law.

Issues considered

Whether Haji Ishan Ali is a sharer in the estate of his predeceased son Sabul Hassan under Muslim inheritance law.
Whether the daughter P‑2 is entitled to a share in the estate of the deceased daughter D‑5.
Whether the delay in bringing legal representatives on record warrants abatement or dismissal, and whether substitution is allowed.

Subjects

Muslim personal lawInheritancePartition suitSharersResiduariesSubstitution of legal representativesAbatement

Judgment

I

A NEWANNESS @MEWAJANNESSA
v
SHAIKH MOHAMMAD @ AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 21, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ:]

Personal Laws-Muslim Law--Partition-Shares of classes of heirs in
i!Jherited property-Entitlement to.

Personal Laws-Delay in bringing LRs. on record despite notice-One
C heir already on record representing all other heirs-No question of abate-
ment--Substitution allowed-No injustice.

One HA died in 1955 leaving behind a widow P-1, who died pending
suit in 1966, two daughters P-2 and D-5: and three son& JA, IA 'and Sh. JA
D left.behind a.son D~l and a daughter D-2. IA left behind a·dauiibter D-3
who was mamed to D-1. SH pre- deceased IA, leaving behind two sons D-4
andL.

The shares and extent were in controversy. The High Court found
that the property purchased by HA in the name of his son SH belonged to
E the latter alone." Since SH had pre-deceased IA, the question arose whether
HA was sharer in the estate of SH and also whether P-2 was entitled to a
share in estate of D-5 who died pending suit.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
}-
F HELD: 1.1. On the basis of the inheritance provisions pos~lated in
Mulla's Principles of Mohamedan Law IA's share was 1/6th out of which
his widow P-1 and daughter P-2 were to take equal respective share under
law. [140-D]

1.2. On the basis of the table in the said treatis(the two daughter of
G D-5 were found entitled to 1/3rd share each as "shI~s" and the balance
1/3rd remained as "residue". Relying on the same -table which dealt with
"residuaries" P-2 was found entitled to take the entire 1/3 rd residue share.
(140-E]
2.1. Since one heir was already on record representing all the heirs
H of the widow of D-1 who died in 1990 the question of abatement for· not
138
NEWANNESS v. SHAIKH MOHAMMAD 139

bringing the legal representatives on record until 1995 ·did not arise. A
Substitution is allowed as there is no injustice in bringing the legal
representatives on record. [140-H, 141-A] ·

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 888 of
1976.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.73 of the Calcutta High
Court in" Appeal from Original Decree No. 652 of 1961.

P.S. Poti, M. Qamaruddin and Mrs. M. Qamarudin for the Appel-
lant.
c
S.N. Misra, D.P. Mukherjee and Sanjay Kr. Ghosh for the Respon-
_/ dents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division D '.
Bench of the Calcutta High Court 'in appeal from original decree No.
652161 and cross objections dated June 8, 1973. This Court while granting
leave limited the appeal to the questions raised in ground Nos. II and VI
dealing with inheritance of property belonging to Sabul, Liaquat and
, Mahujam:nusa. Therefore, untrammeled by the controvetsy which hinged ·E
in the trial Court and the High Court, we confined our consideration only
to these two questions.

This appeal arises out of a partition suit. The genealogy table before
--', us has not been disputed. It would show that Haji Ishan Ali died in 1955
leaving behind his widow Samudanusa, plaintiff No. 1 (P~l), who also died F
pending suit in 1966; his two daUghters, plaintiff No. 2 (P-2) Bibi Mewan-
nes and Bibi Mahujammusa, defendant No. 5 (D-5); and three sons Jabar
Ali, Isabul Ali and Sabul Hassan. Jabar Ali left behind defendant No. 1
-A' (D-1), a son and defendant No. 2 (D-2), a daughter. Isabul Ali left behind
him defendant No. 3 (D-3), a daughter.. D-3 was married to D-1. Sabul
Hassan pre-decea8ed lsabul Ali, leaving behind defendant No. 4 (D-4). a G
son and Liaquat also a son, who too died before the' death of Isabul Ali.
The Trial court granted preliminary decree which was affirmed in appeal
- The shares and extent are in controversy. The High Court found that the
property_ purchased by Haji Ishan Ali in the name of his son Sabul Hassan
belong to ~e latter alone. Since Sabul Hassan had pre7deceased IsabUI Ali, H:
'
140 SUPREME COURTREPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A the question arose whether Haji Ishan Ali was a sharer in the estate of
Sabul Hassan.

Section 61 in Chapter VII of the Mulla's Principles of Mohamedan ·
Law, edited by M. Hidayatullah, former Chief Justice of this Court, postu-
lates three classes of heirs, name]y2 . (1) sharers,(2) residuaries, and (3)
B distant kindred. Sharers are those who are entitled to a prescribed share
in inheritance; residuaries are those who take no prescribed share, but
succeed to the 'residue' after the claims of the shares are satisfied; and
distant kindred are all those relations by blood who are neither sharers nor
residuaries. The Table at page 72-A of th.e 18th Edition prescribes that a
C father who is under Item No. 1, gets 1/6th share, where there is child or
children of a son; and when there is no child or children of a son, the father
inherits as residuary. Since Sabul Hassan left behind D-4 son, Isabul Ali
got 1/(j.th share. Out of this 1/6th share got from the estate of Sabul Hassan,
his wid6w .(P-1) and P-2 the daughter would get equal respective share
D under lilw,.which would be determined by the Trial Court.

· The next questiQ..n is whether P-2' is eµtitled to a share in the estate
of Bibi Mahujammrisa, D-5, who died peii.dini suit. Section 65 dealing with
residuaries, read.with the table at page 72A, indicates .that if there are no
shares, or if there shares but there is residue left after satisfying their claim,
B residuaries also inherit in the order set forth in the Table. D~5 left behind
two daughters and as per the shares two daughters are entitled to 1/3rd
share each i.e. 213rd share. In other words, 1/3rd remained as residue.
Table at page 72A dealing with residuaries indicates that where descen-
dants like son, son's son, and ascendants like father and grand father are l
1
p not available, then the descendants of the father takes in the order men-
tioned. The first if full brother, then sister; in default, a daughter or son's
daughter or daughter's son. In this case since only two daughters were left
behind by D-5, the full sister, namely P-2, takes the entire residue, which
is 1/3rd share.

G .It is next c0ntended that since D-1 died in March 1990, steps were
n~t taken to bring the legal representatives on record until 27th January, r
.1995 de8pite notice given to the appellant by the letter dated November
154, 1990 and no proper explanation has been given for the inordinate
delay. Therefore, the appCal as a whole should be dismissed as having been
H · abalcd.-We. &ad M> force in the contention. Since the third defendant is
NEWANNESS v. SHAIKH MOHAMMAD 141

atfeady on record representing all the heirs of the first defendant, widow, A
the question of abatement does not arise. Even otherwise, we find that
substitution should be allowed, since no injustice would be done in bringing
the legal representatives on record. Thus the objection is over-ruled. The
application for substitution is allowed.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The matter is remitted to the Trial B
Court for determining the shares of all the contesting parties and for
distribution of the estate in proportion to shares. This would be done
according to the law declared hereinbefore. No costs.

·~ A.G. Appeal allowed.