In a significant ruling clarifying property rights under Muslim inheritance law, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals filed by Zoharbee and another party, upholding that an agreement to sell cannot transfer ownership until a registered sale deed is executed. The case revolved around land left behind by Chand Khan, whose death without children triggered a bitter legal dispute between his widow and his brother.
Background
The litigation began after Chand Khan’s death, leaving behind two plots of land - S.No.22/3 and 22/1 of Gut Nos.107 and 126 in Aurangabad. His widow, Zoharbee, claimed three-fourths of the estate as per Mohammedan law, arguing that since Chand Khan died childless, only one-fourth could go to his brother, Imam Khan.
However, Imam Khan contended that the disputed land had already been sold during Chand Khan’s lifetime through an agreement to sell in 1999 to two third parties. He also argued that another portion had been sold to a fourth party, Ayub Khan, and therefore, nothing remained for inheritance.
The trial court sided with Imam Khan, but the appellate court reversed that decision, ruling that an agreement to sell does not amount to ownership transfer. The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad upheld this finding, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra examined whether such an agreement to sell could exclude property from inheritance under Mohammedan law. The bench referred to Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana (2012), which clearly states that a sale of immovable property can only occur through a registered sale deed.
“An agreement to sell does not confer any right nor vest any interest into the party agreeing to buy,” the Court reiterated, emphasizing that ownership passes only upon execution of a conveyance deed.
The Court elaborated on the meaning of matruka - property left by a deceased Muslim - citing Jamil Ahmad v. Vth ADJ, Moradabad (2001). It observed that all property left behind by Chand Khan constituted matruka property, as no valid sale had occurred before his death.
Justice Karol also referred to the Holy Quran (Chapter IV, Verse 12) and Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, explaining that the wife of a deceased Muslim without children is entitled to one-fourth of his estate.
The bench noted that the civil court had “clearly erred” in excluding certain properties based on an incomplete sale and underscored the maxim nemo dat quod non habet - no one can transfer a better title than they possess.
Interestingly, the judges also took exception to the poor translation of the trial court’s Marathi judgment, cautioning that “in matters of law, every word and comma matters.” They stressed the need for accurate translations in appellate records to prevent misinterpretation.
Decision
Concluding that the appellate and High Courts had correctly interpreted the law, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that all of Chand Khan’s properties would be treated as matruka and divided according to Muslim inheritance law.
The bench remarked, “The property in question is unquestionably matruka property and must be distributed among the survivors of Chand Khan as per the prescribed principles.”
No order as to costs was made.
Case Title: Zoharbee & Anr. v. Imam Khan (D) through LRs & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1245 | Civil Appeal Nos. 4517–4518 of 2023
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2025
