Naseem Kahnam vs. Zaheda Begum (D) by LRS

CITATION: Naseem Kahnam vs. Zaheda Begum (D) by LRS

DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT: 09/07/24

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Introduction:
The case of Naseem Kahnam vs. Zaheda Begum (D) by LRS is the case where rights on the property after the death of plaintiff’s specimen was observed. The core idea revolves round succession, and which legal heirs are entitled to the property of the deceased. The case emphasize the legal issues related to the matters of the succession under the personal laws; it will discuss the basic questions relating to the heirs’ rights, the legal analysis of the testamentary documents, and the division of properties. The legal rules of inheritance and the legal norms regulating practice of designation of an heir also had a high importance to this case. Family property disputes: This is a very good illustration of what may be expected when there are many people involved especially from the two or more generations.

Facts of the Case:
The case is one that started with the death of Zaheda Begum during which there was a dispute over the division of a property among the legal beneficiaries. The appellant Naseem Kahnam requested to be recognized as a legal heir of Hakim Ullah’s property to which she had a right. The respondents who are representing the estate of Zaheda Begum denied the appellant’s right to claim for his share either under the personal law governing the issue or in claiming his share there is a vitiating legal disability whether in the form of will or prior division. The case had been reviewed in lower tiers of the jurisdiction, and decisions concerning the appellant had been made at this level. However, since litigants were dissatisfied with the outcome of trials in the lower courts, the issue was taken to the higher judiciary where the primary interests remains the identification of the correct shares of the estate.

Analysis

When considering more of the legal issues in the case, the court also specially paid closer attention to the provisions of the personal law the case involved as well as past legal decisions on the issue of inheritance in the Islamic law. The judges also talked about an enforceability which any decisions made by the heirs would entail, provided that they were reached verbally, or without stamping. In Islamic inheritance law case the court sometimes has to juggle between statutory provision and family culture or tradition. Here the evaluation was done on whether Naseem Kahnam strictly argued her case based on personal law or whether prior settlements constituted more force in the division of the inheritance. In reference to the issues allowed in flexibility within the personal law applications, circumstantial cases were studied.

Issues Raised:

The main issues before the court were:

Whether Naseem Kahnam had any valid claim to inheritance in respect of property belonging to Zaheda Begum under the law which governed her succession.

Whether there was any prohibition under the general rules of inheritance by virtue of the existence of, say, a testamentary will.

Ownership of any property, whether separated before a recognized formal legal separation or a formally requested court-sanctioned separation.

Whether the appellant had complied with the prerequisite formalities under the procedure leading to her claim to her entitlement to share in the property as a legally entitled heir to the proprietors.

Whether the respondents could invoke any defences – essere possessori avversi, adverse possession – to stop the appellant’s claims, as the legal representatives of Zaheda Begum. 

Contention of the Appellant:

• The deceased, Zaheda Begum’s property was claimed by the appellant Naseem Kahnam under the personal law provisions.
• She said the respondents locked her out of the inheritance process and sought to pass her over.
• When asked whether there exist a valid will which needs to be proved in court or any asserted disposition of the estate either in a written will or by any other legal means, Naseem responded that such was a nonstarter under the law.
• She was fully justified in stating that any earlier separation of the property organization had been only partial or even if it were unlawful; none of these justified the denial of her rights as a full legal heir.
• Instead of insisting on sharing the property through the court, Naseem therefore highlighted the need for a legal counseling so as to show the court that she had every right to the property.

Contention of the Respondent:

• In their defence, the respondents on behalf of Zaheda Begum, the appellant’s deceased sister, declared that the latter was trespassing by occupying the contested property.
• They said that prior to Naseem getting into the property there was a will drawn, which would have disqualified her from any form of bequest.
• The respondents claimed that they had agreed earlier with Naseem to divide the house or they sought the court’s intervention, therefore, her claim is legally unsustainable.
• They made procedural objections and averred that there are no evidence we are the legal heirs of the deceased and did not follow channel of personal law as provided by the law.
• Further, the respondents’ responses asserted that they had exercised physical control over the property for long enough in order to apply adverse possession in defending from Naseem.

Judgment:

The court after hearing the arguments for and against the issue under consideration and after going through the records as presented came out with its decision. The court decided in the favor of the appellant on the grounds of sharing the property according to personal law of succession. Respondents could not prove the existence of a valid will or any lawful prior partition that the appellant could be stripped of her rights. The judge also dismissed the adverse possession argument with a view to the fact that the respondents have not met legal requirements to advance it. It also reiterated that legal heirs cannot debarbed from inheritance and without valid and legal reasons and directed that the properties be distributed as per law. The decision while applying the provisions of Personal law to cause of action and inheritance matters called attention to a standard for similar causes.