ABUBAKAR ABDUL INAMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus HARUN ABDUL INAMDAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 30-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ABUBAKAR ABDUL !NAMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
B 
v. 
HARUN ABDUL !NAMDAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 30, 1995 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
Bombay Merged Tenitories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 
1955: 
C 
Muslim Law-Succession-!namdar-Death-lmpmtible Inam lands 
devolving on eldest son by Rule of p1imogeniture-Abolition of Inams-Eldest 
son regarded as a Watandar on re-grant-Claim by other brothers and sisters 
as· co-sharer-Held pennissible. 
Adverse possessi01t-f'leadings-Held no amount of proof can sub-
D stitute pleadings. 
E 
The dispute in this appeal relates to two properties which belonged 
to one S. On his death agricultural lands which were Inams and impartible 
in nature devplved upon his eldest son A by the Rule of primogeniture. The 
other property was a dwelling unit which remained in possession of A. 
Subsequent to the abolition of loams under the Bombay Merged Ter-
ritories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955, A was regarded as 
a Watandar on re-grant of the properties. The brothers and sisters of A 
filed a suit claiming share in agricultural land as co-heirs and sought 
partition of house property as heirs. The Trial Court decreed their suit in 
F 
respect of loam lands, but dismissed the same in respect of the house 
property. The Appellant Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. 
The High Court decreed the entire suit. It rejected the claim of A that loam 
lands became'personal' in his hands or regrant as well as the plea of 
adverse possession taken by him with regard to the house property. 
G Against the decision of the High Court an appeal was preferred before this 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Estate of S should normally have devolved upon his 
H children in accordance with the shares as defined by the Shariat Law. But 
172 
A.A. INAMDAR v. H.A. !NAMDAR 
173 
since the properties were Inams and impartible and the services to the A 
Ruler due from the members of the family were expected to be taken from 
the eldest son by the rule of primogeniture, then the heirs of S, even though 
not forming a joint Hindu Family as is known to Hindu Law, would still 
be a group of people, the representative of which was A in order to hold 
the Inam. Once that Inam was abolished and re-grant given to A, impar-
tibility of the estate vanished and thus this group of people were definitely 
entitled to claim their respective shares in accordance with the law of 
Shariat. There is no impelling reason to draw a line of distinction qua the 
B 
two cases in Nagesh Bisto Desai* and Annasaheb Bapusaheb** so as to 
carve out an exception to the principle for Mohammedans. The prime 
reason for such interpretation is that the Ruler while drawing up the loam C 
initially and conferring it again on A did not intend to create any distinc-
tion between his subjects, be it Muslims or Hindus. Uniformity of tradition 
in that regard would be a good rule of reason so as to set the matter at 
rest here. [175-B-E] 
*Nagesh Bisto Desai Etc. Etc. v. Khando Tinnal Desai Etc. [1982) 3 D 
SCR 341; ** Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Ors. v. Balwant (dead) by Lrs. 
and heirs and Ors. (1995] 2 SCC 543, relied on. 
2. It is true that some evidence, basically of Municipal register 
entries, were inducted to prove the point of adverse possession but no E 
amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the 
claim of a litigating party. The finding relating to the plea of adverse 
possession was rightly reversed by the High Court. [175-G-H; 176-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2750 of 
~n. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11th August, 1976 of the 
Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 298 of 1970. 
V.N. Ganpule and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellants. 
B.N. Naik, Arnn Mohan, S.V. Tambwekar, Krishan Mahajan, M. 
P.H. Parekh and Ms. Shefali Z. Fazal for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
This appeal having arisen from the judgment and order of the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
174' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
Bombay High Court relates to two properties which belonged to one Syed 
Abdul Inamdar. On his death, he was succeeded by six children; four of 
whom are sons and two daughters. The eldest son is Abubakar. 
On the death of Syed Abdulla, agricultural lands which were assigned 
to Abubakar, the eldest son, by certain orders passed by the Ruler of 
Kolhapur as Inams of two kinds. It is the admitted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.