TARSEM v. DHARMA ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

C.A. No.-002497-002498 - 2024

Disposition

remanded

Attorney(S)

ANIS AHMED KHAN
YADAV NARENDER SINGH

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arise out of intra-family litigation concerning the validity and permissible extent of a Will allegedly executed by one late Hazi. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 instituted the original suit asserting that Hazi had bequeathed his entire estate to three of his sons—Dharma, Gulzar and Karam Chand—while excluding the fourth son, Tarsem (the present appellant). The Trial Court decreed the suit in their favour.

On first appeal, the judgment was modified: the court held that, under Mohammedan law, Hazi could dispose of only one-third of his estate by Will; the remaining two-thirds had to be distributed equally among all legal heirs. The High Court, in second appeal, reinstated the Trial Court’s view by affirming the genuineness of the Will and restoring the full bequest. Tarsem’s further appeal has now reached the Supreme Court of India, which has heard arguments and reserved judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Muslim women are entitled to claim equality in succession in view of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India read with Article 44.
Whether a Muslim testator may validly bequeath the whole of his estate according to personal wishes.
Whether, without obtaining consent of the other heirs, a Muslim testator can validly bequeath up to one-third of the estate to one or more of the legal heirs.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Narunnisa v. Shek Abdul Hamid, AIR 1987 Kant 222	Muhammadan law limits testamentary power; where heirs do not consent, a daughter can insist on inheriting one-third rather than an unequal share.	Referenced to illustrate existing High Court views that restrict discriminatory bequests under Muslim personal law.
Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36	Constitutional advance toward gender-equal succession rights (under Hindu law).	Cited to show that subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence has promoted equality, prompting reconsideration of earlier Muslim-law positions.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1	Recognition of constitutional principles overriding personal-law practices discriminatory to women.	Mentioned to underscore the need for a constitutional lens in evaluating Muslim testamentary and succession rules.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted a conflict between High Court authorities that limit a Muslim’s testamentary freedom and the more recent constitutional focus on gender equality. In preparation for a definitive ruling, the Bench:

Reviewed Islamic legal treatises, including “The Hedaya,” Syed Ameer Ali’s works, and Mulla’s “Principles of Mohammedan Law,” to understand orthodox positions on Wills.
Observed that societal norms and constitutional jurisprudence have evolved since the earlier High Court decisions were rendered, particularly after Prakash v. Phulavati and Shayara Bano.
Framed three specific legal questions (see “Legal Issues Presented”) requiring “deeper consideration.”
Appointed Senior Advocate Mr. V. Giri as Amicus Curiae, with Mr. Amit Krishnan, AOR, to assist, and requested the learned Attorney General for India to lend assistance, emphasising the matter’s broad ramifications and absence of Supreme Court precedent directly on point.
Granted leave to the appellant to correct typographical errors in the paper-book and directed the Registry to furnish complete, corrected records to counsel and the Attorney General’s office.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: Judgment is reserved; the Court has framed key constitutional and personal-law questions, appointed an Amicus Curiae, sought the Attorney General’s assistance, permitted correction of the record, and listed the matter on 25 July 2024.

Implications: No final adjudication on the validity of the Will or the scope of Muslim testamentary power has yet been made. The order signals the Supreme Court’s intent to potentially reconcile Muslim personal law with constitutional equality mandates, but for now the immediate effect is only procedural—preparing for a comprehensive hearing with expert assistance. No new binding precedent has been established at this stage.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

TARSEM v. DHARMA .

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 2497-2498/2024 TARSEM Appellant(s)

VERSUS

DHARMA . & ORS. Respondent(s)

([ FOR DIRECTIONS ] )

Date : 16-05-2024 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Appellant(s) Ms. Kheyali Singh, AOR Mr. R K Kapoor, Adv.

Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Adv.

Ms. Krishna Joshi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Hardik Vashisht, Adv.

Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR

Mr. Moksh Arora, Adv.

Ms. Poonam Atey, Adv.

Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv.

Mr. Yash Srivastava, Adv.

Mr. Akshit Gadhok, Adv.

Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. The arguments in the aforesaid appeals were heard and the judgment was reserved. Issue raised is pertaining to execution of the Will by late Hazi. The parties are governed by Mohammedan Law, which is not codified.

2. The suit was filed by respondent no. 1 and 2 claiming that late Hazi had executed a Will in favour of three of his sons namely Dharma, Gulzar and Karam Chand leaving the fourth son namely Tarsem. The Trial Court had decreed the suit. The First Appellant Court modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and directed that late Hazi could execute Will only to the extent of

1/3^rd of his estate and the same was upheld to that extent. For the remaining 2/3^rd estate all the legal heirs were to share the estate equally.

3. In further appeal to the High Court, the genuineness of the Will was upheld. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored.

4. During the course of argument various judgments of different High Courts were cited in terms of which a Mohammedan is not entitled to discriminate in bequeathing his estate amongst his legal heirs unless they consent for the same. Meaning thereby all legal heirs are to share the estate equally. On the other side, the testator is entitled to bequeath 1/3^rd of his estate in favour of third party and the balance 2/3^rd will go to the legal heirs in equal shares. This bar of 1/3^rd will not be applicable in case the legal heirs consent for the same.

5. In one of the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in Narunnisa v. Shek Abdul Hamid Hamid¹ reference has been made to an earlier judgment holding that if a Mohammedan is survived by a son and a daughter and the daughter does not consent to the deposition by the testator of giving 3/4^th of the property to the son and 1/4^th to the daughter, she will be entitled to claim 1/3^rd of the property as her share of inheritance and not 50%.

6. While going to the root of the issue, we came across "The Hedaya - Commentary on the Islamic Laws" translated by Charles Hamilton², "Mohammedan Law by Syed Ameer Ali" containing the law relating to 'Gifts, Wakfs, Wills, Pre-emption and Bailment'³,

"Principles of Mohammedan Law by Mulla"⁴ and others.

7. The times have changed ever since the aforesaid views were expressed by the High Courts specially in view of the judgments of this Court in Prakash and others v. Phulavati and others⁵ and Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others⁶.

8. In our view the matter requires a deeper consideration on

1 AIR 1 987 KANT 222

2 2 ^ndEdition, 1870 (last reprinted in 1994)

3 4^thEdition, 1985 (First published in 1912)

4 22^ndEdition, 2019

5 (2016) 2 SCC 36

6 (2017) 9 SCC 1

the following issues:

i. Whether Muslim women have right to claim equality in succession in view of the mandate of Constitution of India under Articles 14 and 15 thereof in the light of Article 44.

ii. Whether a testator, who is governed by Mohammedan Law, is entitled to execute a Will of his entire estate left, according to his wish?

iii. Whether a testator, who is governed by Mohammedan Law, can execute a Will to the extent of 1/3^rd of the estate left by him in favour of any or more of his legal heirs without the consent of other legal heirs?

9. Upon request, Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel has graciously accepted to assist in this matter as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Amit Krishnan, AOR (Mob. 9910062380) shall assist the learned Amicus Curiae in the matter. We also request the learned Attorney General for India to assist this Court in this matter as the issues have large ramifications and there is no direct judgment on the issue by this Court.

10. We may clarify that the issues noticed above may be reframed after hearing the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Attorney General for India.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is some typographical error in pages no.67 to 71 of the Civil Appeal paper book and sought permission to correct them. Permission sought for is granted.

12. The Registry is directed to supply the complete set of paper book of these appeals to Mr. Amit Krishnan, AOR, assisting the learned Amicus Curiae and the Office of the learned Attorney General for India along with a copy of this order, after incorporating the corrections in the paper book, as sought for by the appellant.

13. List on 25.07.2024.

(DR. NAVEEN RAWAL) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)

DY. REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)

TARSEM v. DHARMA .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

TARSEM v. DHARMA .

Comments