The Aryavarth Express
Agency (Karnataka): The Karnataka High Court has clarified that Muslim Personal Law, governed by the Shariat Application Act of 1937, does not override the rules about property “settlements” outlined in the Karnataka Stamp Act of 1957. This ruling came from Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde, who led a single-judge bench, and it overturns a previous decision made by a lower court.
The controversy began with a lawsuit involving family members disputing how property was divided. Sultan Mohiyuddin and others appealed against a trial court’s decision that supported a partition and separate possession claim by Habeebunnissa and others. These plaintiffs argued that their father, T.A. Abdul Jabbar, had wrongly transferred properties through settlement deeds, which they believed were not allowed under Muslim law.
What is a “settlement”? In legal terms, a settlement involves transferring property through a formal agreement where the owner, known as the settler, decides how to distribute their property, usually to family members. This can be done without selling the property or having the recipients pay for it, which is often used to ensure financial support for the family or to distribute the owner’s assets before they pass away.
The High Court examined the history and language of both the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act and the Karnataka Stamp Act. It found that the 1937 Shariat Act was meant to work alongside the Indian Stamp Act of 1899, which was the law when the Shariat Act was enacted. Both the 1899 Act and the later 1957 Karnataka Stamp Act recognized the legality of settlements. Therefore, the court concluded that the Shariat Act does not cancel out the Stamp Act’s rules on property settlements.
The judges pointed out that just because the Shariat Act, based on Islamic principles, doesn’t specifically mention settlements, it doesn’t mean they are forbidden for Muslims. The ruling emphasized that Indian law, which is secular and applies to everyone regardless of religion, allows these types of property agreements.
The specific case involved several properties that T.A. Abdul Jabbar, the father involved in the lawsuit, had transferred to various family members through three different settlement deeds:
1. On September 10, 1965, a deed favored his grandsons Sultan Moyuddin, Ahmed Pasha, and Azaz Pasha.
2. The next day, he made another settlement for his son T.A. Abdul Rasheed, and gave some money to his third wife, Haleema Bi.
3. On September 13, 1965, another deed was made for his young daughters, the plaintiffs in this case.
The plaintiffs were unhappy with the second settlement, which they felt shortchanged them compared to what other family members received. They wanted this deed canceled to get a fair share of the property. However, the defendants, who benefited from the challenged deed, argued that the property had been fairly transferred and noted that the plaintiffs had accepted benefits from other settlements, which meant they recognized their father’s right to distribute his property as he saw fit.
In its decision, the court stressed that the law allows property owners to distribute their assets in different ways, including through settlements. The court saw no legal reason to forbid such transactions under the Stamp Act just because the plaintiffs felt they were treated unfairly.
The Karnataka High Court’s ruling is important because it confirms that Muslim individuals have the right to organize their property through settlements just like anyone else in India. This decision reinforces the principle that religious laws do not restrict the rights provided under general, secular laws.
The court also criticized the plaintiffs for only contesting the settlement that did not favor them, while accepting benefits from other settlements. It concluded that they could not challenge one part of their father’s arrangements while benefiting from others.