24 October 2025 Legal Updates

MOHAMMEDAN LAW | MUSLIM WIDOW WITH NO CHILD ENTITLED TO 1/4TH SHARE IN DECEASED HUSBAND'S ESTATE: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Zoharbee & Anr. v. Imam Khan (D) Thr. LRS. & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• October 16, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Facts

This case involved a property dispute between Zoharbee (widow) and Imam Khan (brother) over the estate left by deceased Chand Khan, who died without children. The dispute concerned land parcels, with Zoharbee claiming three-fourths share of the matruka property (estate of deceased Muslim) under Muslim law, while Imam Khan argued that the property had been transferred during Chand Khan's lifetime through an Agreement to Sell, though the actual sale deed was executed only after his death.

Legal Issues

• Whether an Agreement to Sell excludes property from matruka property to be partitioned upon death
• Whether the disputed properties qualified as matruka properties under Muslim law

Court's Reasoning and Decision

• On Agreement to Sell: The Supreme Court held that an Agreement to Sell does not transfer any interest or create any charge on property. Relying on Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana (2012), the Court emphasized that only a registered sale deed can transfer title in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the sale deed was executed after Chand Khan's death, the property remained his at the time of death.
• On Matruka Property: The Court defined matruka as property (movable and immovable) left by a deceased Muslim. All property vested in Chand Khan at his death constituted matruka property subject to distribution under Muslim law of inheritance.
• On Distribution: Referring to the Holy Quran and Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law, the Court held that as Chand Khan died without children, his wife Zoharbee was entitled to one-fourth (1/4th) share as a "sharer" under Sunni Muslim law, not three-fourths as she claimed. The Court applied the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what they don't have), noting that Zoharbee could only sell her 1/4th share, not the entire property.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the First Appellate Court and High Court that the property must be distributed according to Muslim law of inheritance, with the wife receiving 1/4th share.

Key Legal Principles

• Agreement to Sell vs. Sale Deed: An Agreement to Sell creates only a personal obligation, not property rights
• Transfer of Property: Only registered sale deeds transfer title in immovable property (Section 54, TPA)
• Matruka Property: Estate left by deceased Muslim, distributed after funeral expenses, debts, and legacies
• Muslim Law of Inheritance: Wife gets 1/4th share when deceased has no children; 1/8th when there are children
• Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet: One cannot transfer better title than one possesses