Case Summary : Abdul Raheem vs. Land Acquisition Officer

Author : Darshi Sanghvi


         AIR 1989 AP 318


Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy


The Hindu and Muslim laws are different in several aspects. For instance, on the death of a Muslim, his properties are devolved on his heirs and on the death of these heirs, the properties are further inherited by their respective legal heirs and the cycle continues. Furthermore, the Muslim law of inheritance makes no precise distinction between an ancestral property and a self-acquired property. It considers all properties to be individual properties that are capable of being inherited by legal heirs. The present case shows how the concepts of joint family and coparcenary property are not recognised under the Muslim law.


Shaikh Ali and Shaikh Mohiuddin, sons of one Abdul Khader, filed an appeal. The appellant’s case states that their father purchased a total of Acs. 7.35 guntas (Survey No. 30 comprising of Acs. 5.30 guntas and Survey No. 31 comprising of Acs. 2.05 guntas) situated in Kalvakurthy He further claims that he is entitled to receive the payment of entire compensation, as upon partition between him and his brothers (Respondents 1 & 2), the registered preparation list put the property in his share, thereby giving him an exclusive right over the property. Upon the death of the fourth respondent Mohd. Jahangir during the proceedings in the lower court, his legal representatives (respondents 4 to 6) were brought on record. They claimed that Jahangir had exclusive right to the extent of Acs. 2.05 guntas under Survey No. 31.

  • Whether the appellant has exclusive title over the said property?
  • Whether the doctrine of joint family status is applicable to Muslims?
  • Whether a registered partition deed has been executed and registered in the present case?
  • Whether the doctrine of adverse possession is applicable to the appellant?
  • Whether the partition list is applicable to the parties in the present case?
    • The doctrine of joint family status does not apply to Muslims under their personal law. According to S. 17 read with S. 49 of the Registration Act, the right, title and interest can be extinguished through execution and registration only if the land amounts to more than Rs. 100. Since no partnership deed is executed and registered in the present case, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the 3 brothers (appellant and respondents 2 and 3) shall not extinguish and their positions shall be that of co-owners.
    • The doctrine of adverse possession shall not helpful to the appellant as the alleged partition list was of 1973 and the acquisition happened in 1977. Furthermore, the partition list is not applicable to Muslims as the Doctrine of Hindu joint family does not apply to them.
    • Jahangir was not entitled to the property and the respondents 2 and 3 are equally entitled to the property and shall thus be granted compensation in the ratio 1:3.
    • All the benefits of the Land Acquisition Act shall be applicable to the claimants, subject to result by the SC.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *