The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that under Muslim law, the interests of individual heirs are separate and distinct and the concept of a joint family or representation does not apply.
The court held that a brother cannot automatically act as the legal guardian of his minor siblings and sell their share of inherited property. The ruling came while upholding a woman’s claim over a disputed parcel of land that she had possessed for more than three decades, LiveLaw reported.
Sale of minors’ share challenged
The case concerned land purchased through a registered sale deed in 1975. The plaintiff said she bought the property from Nagar Ali, who executed the deed for himself as well as claiming to act as guardian of his four minor siblings.
She said she remained in possession of the land after the purchase, cultivated it through agricultural workers and had the property mutated in her name.
The defendants later challenged the sale, arguing that the deed was void from the beginning because Ali was not their legal guardian and had not obtained a guardianship certificate. They also claimed they had never agreed to sell the property and only learned about the sale after receiving summons in the case.
The trial court and the lower appellate court, however, ruled in favour of the plaintiff and recognised her title and possession.
Muslim law does not recognise joint family theory
Hearing the appeal, Justice Kalyan Rai Surana examined the principles governing inheritance and property under Muslim law.
The court noted that Muslim heirs are not treated as coparceners and that the law does not recognise the concept of a joint family in the same manner as some other personal laws.
“Mohammedan heirs are not coparceners,” Justice Surana observed, adding that “the concept of joint family is foreign to Muslim Law.”
The court further said that Muslim law does not recognise the theory of representation and that “interest of each heir is separate and distinct.”
This means that one heir cannot simply represent other heirs in dealing with their property merely because they are members of the same family.
Fiduciary relationship can exist
The court, however, clarified that Muslim law does recognise certain fiduciary relationships.
Referring to legal principles discussed in earlier judgments, the court said adult male members of a Muslim family may carry on a business for the benefit of other interested family members, including minors and women.
In such circumstances, the adult member holding or managing assets may stand in a fiduciary relationship with the other beneficiaries.
The court said this could be relevant where a case involves partnership, agency or a similar fiduciary arrangement. However, such a relationship cannot simply be presumed from the existence of a family relationship.
Plaintiff’s long possession considered
The High Court ultimately upheld the plaintiff’s possession and rights over the property, noting that she had remained in possession for around 30–33 years and that the defendants had failed to assert their claim within the prescribed limitation period.
The court therefore held that the plaintiff had perfected her right, title and interest through long possession, even though the sale deed was void to the extent of the four-fifth share belonging to the four minors.
