Gujarat HC rejects Muslim woman's claim to 'ancestral' property, citing alien 'joint family' concept

The Gujarat High Court rejected a Muslim woman's bid for a share in her late father's properties, ruling that the Hindu notion of "joint family" does not apply under Mohammedan law.

Justice J.C. Doshi's 50-page order dismissed pleas by descendants of Valimohammad Kaduji and wife Ayesha, challenging a 1983 family settlement. Kaduji's daughter sought estate administration, claiming brothers misled her on Vadodara properties (Akota, Tandalja) developed into Jumeirah Park. The 1983 deal gave daughters Rs 30,000; her sister had relinquished rights.

A 2024 trial court order favored her with an injunction, but defendants argued 37-year delay and laches, only surfacing amid real estate plans. They noted her negligible share was already settled monetarily.

The HC held Muslim succession is "individual," with no presumption of joint family benefits: "In Mohammedan law, there is not, as in Hindu law, any presumption that acquisitions by members benefit the joint family."

Concepts like coparcenary (birthright interest) or ancestral property are foreign; heirs have mere "spes" (chance of succession). "Nemo est heres viventis"—no heir while alive—applies, absent fiduciary ties.

The bench faulted the trial court for "serious error" and "perversity," ignoring Mohammedan law and the unchallenged 1983 settlement: "Parties governed by Mohammedan principles lack 'joint family property'... This would avail her under Hindu law, but not here."

No partnership, agency, or trust was proven to invoke remedies like the Indian Trusts Act.

The ruling underscores distinct family property presumptions: Hindu jointness vs. Muslim individuality, even in commensality.