Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction

“Nemo est heres viventis – A Living Person Has No Heir”, In a powerful restatement of Muslim succession principles, the Gujarat High Court decisively held that the “concept of joint family property and ancestral property is wholly foreign to Mohammedan Law.”

Justice J.C. Doshi dismissed two Civil Revision Applications seeking rejection of the plaint on limitation but allowed three Appeals From Order, quashing the trial court’s sweeping interim injunction that had restrained development and alienation of multiple immovable properties.

The Court found that the injunction order suffered from “perversity,” having been passed in ignorance of settled principles governing Mohammedan inheritance and the three cardinal requirements for grant of temporary injunction.

Daughter Seeks Administration of Estate Decades After Father’s Death

The plaintiff, a Muslim daughter, instituted Special Civil Suit No. 132 of 2021 seeking administration of the estate of her deceased father, who died in 1984, and her mother, who died in 1995. She claimed shares under Shariat in properties described as Lot-3A and Lot-3B, sought declarations that sale deeds executed by her brothers were null and void, prayed for permanent injunction restraining development of lands including the “Jumeirah Park” project, and alternatively claimed compensation of ₹50 Crores.

The defendants contended that a family settlement dated 25.04.1983 had already distributed the properties during the father’s lifetime, mutation entries were made in 1984 and 1985 with the plaintiff’s knowledge, and multiple sale transactions had taken place over decades without objection.

Rejection of Plaint Refused: “Limitation Is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact”

On the plea under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the defendants argued that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation and that the plaintiff had been “ousted” since 1984.

The High Court declined to reject the plaint. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that rejection of plaint is a “drastic power” and when a plaintiff pleads that exclusion became known at a later stage, such assertion becomes a triable issue.

The Court observed that whether the plaintiff’s claim of recent denial of share is genuine or not “is not the question to be decided at threshold.” Thus, the Civil Revision Applications were dismissed.

“The Presumption of Joint Family Has Got to Be Completely Forgotten”

The turning point came while examining the interim injunction. The plaintiff had pleaded that properties were “joint family properties” purchased from the father’s earnings and that subsequent acquisitions were “ancestral properties.”

Justice Doshi rejected this doctrinal foundation in emphatic terms.

Quoting established principles, the Court held, “The Indian legal concepts of ‘joint’ or ‘undivided’ family, ‘coparcenary’, karta, ‘survivorship’, and ‘partition’, etc., have no place in the law of Islam.”

The Court reiterated the maxim, “Nemo est heres viventis – A living person has no heir,” and clarified that under Mohammedan Law, the right of an heir arises only upon death, and heirs succeed as tenants-in-common in definite shares.

The judgment stressed that “the presumption of the Hindu Law regarding the joint family, joint family property or joint family funds has got to be completely forgotten in deciding cases between the parties who are Mohammedans.”

By invoking concepts of joint family nucleus and ancestral property, the plaintiff had relied upon principles that are “wholly alien” to Mohammedan Law.

Family Settlement Recognized: “Not Challenged and Prima Facie Acted Upon”

A crucial document was the family arrangement dated 25.04.1983 executed during the father’s lifetime. It recognized the allocation of lands among sons and provided monetary payment to daughters upon sale of lands.

Revenue entries were mutated pursuant to this arrangement and statements of the plaintiff and other heirs were recorded. The Court noted that the family settlement was “not assailed or countered by the plaintiff.”

While acknowledging that family settlements are less common in Muslim law contexts, the Court held that such arrangements are legally valid if voluntary and intended to maintain harmony. The trial court’s failure to give due weight to this document at the interim stage amounted to perversity.

“Clever Pleading to Get Away from the Principle of Acquiescence”

The Court examined the extraordinary delay. The father died in 1984. Mutation entries were made in 1984–85. Sales occurred between 1999 and 2005 and again in 2019. The plaintiff resided in the same city and maintained close familial ties with the defendants.

In this backdrop, the Court held that the plea that brothers kept “assuring” her of a share was “nothing but a clever pleading to get away from the Principle of Acquiescence.”

The prolonged silence, coupled with third-party transactions and development, disentitled the plaintiff from equitable relief.

Injunction Based on Affidavit Held “Perverse and Against Settled Law”

The High Court also found fault with the manner in which the injunction was granted. The trial court had relied heavily on an affidavit restricting the claim to certain unsold properties without amendment of the plaint.

Justice Doshi observed, “It is settled principle that the Court cannot grant relief what is not claimed by the party.” The impugned order was described as a “replica” of the affidavit and thus legally unsustainable.

Referring to Wander Ltd. v. Antox India and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Choksi, the Court reiterated that appellate interference is warranted where discretion is exercised perversely or in ignorance of governing law.

“All Three Golden Principles Fail”

The Court held that the three cardinal principles governing injunction – prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss – were not satisfied.

The prima facie case was undermined by incorrect reliance on Hindu law concepts. The balance of convenience lay in favour of defendants, as third-party interests had already been created. As regards irreparable loss, the Court noted that the plaintiff had claimed ₹50 Crores compensation and that monetary compensation was contemplated even in the family settlement.

The Court concluded that “help of the three golden rule of grant of injunction… fails to stand in favor of the plaintiff.”

The Civil Revision Applications were dismissed. The Appeals From Order were allowed. The injunction order dated 02.02.2024 was quashed and the application for temporary injunction dismissed. Observations were held to be tentative and not to influence the trial. Earlier interim protection was continued for three weeks.

This judgment stands as a decisive reaffirmation that Mohammedan succession is individual and definite, not collective or coparcenary. By clarifying that “joint family property” and “ancestral property” have no place in Muslim personal law, the Gujarat High Court has prevented doctrinal cross-application that could unsettle established principles of inheritance.

At the same time, the Court preserved the suit for trial on merits, ensuring that questions of limitation and entitlement will be tested on evidence.

The message is clear: personal law principles cannot be bypassed at the interim stage, and equitable relief cannot survive in the face of acquiescence, third-party rights, and misapplication of settled doctrine.

Date of Decision: 10 February 2026