JAMIL AHMAD AND ORS. versus 5TH ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE MORADABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
'-. 
JAMIL AHMAD AND ORS. 
v. 
5TH ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE MORADABAD AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND·.S.N: PHUKAN,lJJ.] 
B 11 
J 
'.1·· •. .'Jl'}ltl 
. ·L 
11·f. >nr 1• 1 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holffings Act,_ I960 .: .· ,., , 
' . 
' 
! 
~ . . 
. 
( 
. ' 
. 
. I .: • 
.I 
Ss. 5 and /0(2)-Determination of ceiling area--A Muslim tenure.holder 
. 
l j 
~' 
.• ! _i 
• t 
,I 
'·' . 1 
J, 
• 
bequeathing some of his land on I5./2.I974-Death oftenurejiplde.r,T!Celin~, . C J 
authority adding the said land in the _holding of his son as inherited by him, 
without giving notice to legatees-Writ petition of legatees distnissed-:e-Appeal 
by legatees contending that land bequeathed to them under the will having 
been mutated in their names and having become theih1roperty:' i:aithot be 
treated to have been inherited by son oftestator--:--Held, the, will was found 
to be .genuine bv Tehsildar-~nd~ which,ie~·tai~;, ~~te,;titl~d :tb hold'. was, I{l 
-
• • 
', 1 
-
1 
• 
'. 
~ 
I I (: f.J . . 
,' fl• 
+·1 
r 
determined-Out of that land, legatee~ would be entitled _to ihe ~dnd,und~r· · 
t 
'-.f_. 
' 
.Ii 
~~j··J.·t~t;', 
::_.~! 
(. 
'I." 
the will subject to their ceilif~g limit-In pomputation of ceiling area. whqt .is 
' 
t 
, 
;( 
j•. 
' 
j 
• 
'' ! 
, .. t,,d . ...r.i ... 
dd 
.~ 
relevant is the land held by the individual as on 8.6.I973-But it is a 
• • 
-
·· • j f;-' •"!,. l-
1% 
;: r.j '' ·(>, 
~. 
continuous process-On subsequent acquisition of land by an. individual; 
authon"ties wili have to determine afresh his ceiling. area as, on the date of 
E. 
acquisition-Pmp~rty bequeathed by a deceased persorJ. c_annot be qdded to, 1 
the share of his heirsfor,computingJheirkhatas albeit.it can be added to khqt(ls 
of legates-It is not clear as to how much extent the testator was entitled to 
hold and how much extent his son got by way of inheritance,.--Matter rem(tted 
to Prescribed Authority for fresh inquiry for det(4rmination of area which 
legatees ,are entitied to have under the Will having regard to the land, {f any, 
held by them;: in their khatas~Mohammedan Law-Matruka-:-Scheme of · 
distribution. 
Pt• 
.,:i 
1 
• 
.-' 
p. 
'· 
~ 
~-..'i r 
• 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, l950 :'. ' 
'L. s~. 'I 99 a;z(L I 7 i~A M~slim b~un!idh~;r~Bequeathif!'!? SOI~~ ~j ht~ land 
G 
und~; a ,H;ill-Distributiorz. of land le.ti, by hii:i'-Hetd, would b~ governed by 
ss .. 167 and 171-Limitation placed under Mohammedan Law that bequest 
: j' • 
' • 
:. 
• ; 
' . 
. 
; 
. • . 
' 
• 
~ 
should not exceed I/3rd of Matruka and it should not be in favour of im heir 
' 
• 
~ , ~.·~,·~I; 
·• 
' 
'" 
• 
I ' 
' 
. . 
1 
1 
, 
• 
will nop1pp.fy,. s.o also class,ific~tion of heirs and the prop?,rtion in which They 
. willinherit Matruk.a 'wider Mohanunedan Ui'w is replace{[ with the provisions 
Hr 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
of s.171 of the Act in which a different order of succession is provided-
Mohammedan Law-Matruka-Scheme of distributiOrt. 
Mohammedan Law-Matruka left by a Bflumidhar under U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Lo.nd Reforms Act, 1950-Scheme of distribution-Explained. 
B · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.78 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 1054 of 1978. 
E.R. Kumar, Musharraf Chowdhary, P.H. Parekh, Chandra Shekhar, 
C 
(AC) for the appellants. 
· Ex-parte for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was qelivered : 
D 
This appeal is from the order of the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad dated November 24, 1978 disposing of the Writ Petition No. 1054/ 
78 filed by the appellants in terms of the order in W.P. No. 1270/78 passed 
on _the _same date. By virtue of the said order, the Writ Petition filed by. the 
appellants stood dismissed. 
E 
To comprehend· the controversy, it will be necessary to refer briefly to 
the facts giving rise to this appeal. One Wali Mohammed held certain 
agricultrual lands. He had transferred an extent of 25. 79 acr.:..s of land in favour 
of his blind unmanied daughter (Moti Begum) ill 1359 Fasli - long before 
coming into force. of the Act. In accordance with the provisions of the U.P. 
F 
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), his 
ceiling area, under Section 5 of the Act, was determined. On December 15, 
197 4 ·he executed a Will beqeathing an extent of 25 .32 acres out of his Ian~ 
in favour of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.