The trial court had disinherited a woman, one Rehmani, on the basis of the customary rights prevailing in the Meo ethnic group of the Mewat region.
In a significant judgment regarding the case of Mohd. Ashraf and Another v Sadiq (Since Deceased) through his LRs and Others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that “any custom or restriction curtailing the right of a female to alienate a non-ancestral property inherited by her from her husband is inherently discriminatory.“
Justice Virinder Aggarwal made this observation while overturning two previous decisions from a trial court and an appellate court involving a land dispute that began in 1982. The lower court had originally disinherited a woman named Rehmani by citing the customary laws of the Meo ethnic group in the Mewat region, which claimed that a Meo widow is only entitled to a “life interest” in property from her father or husband.
However, the High Court set aside these findings, ruling that “a limitation founded solely upon gender or marital status cannot withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates equality before law and prohibits arbitrary or unreasonable classifications.“
“Consequently, any such fetter on a woman’s right to deal with her independently inherited property must be held to be constitutionally impermissible, legally unsustainable, and devoid of binding effect,” the Court ruled.
The legal dispute centered on approximately 43 acres (42 kanals and 19 marlas) of land in Haryana’s former Gurgaon district, originally owned by Akkala, a member of the Meo Muslim community. Following Akkala’s passing, his widow, Rehmani, sold the property via a registered deed in 1982. This sale was promptly contested by Akkala’s nephew, who claimed the transaction was invalid. He argued that because Akkala died childless, the land should revert to him after Rehmani’s lifetime, asserting that she lacked the authority to sell the estate without his permission.
Read Also – https://www.shoneekapoor.com/legal-news/rape-law-marriage-army-officer/
Initially, a Sub-Judge 1st Class ruled against Rehmani, a decision later supported by the Additional District Judge in Gurgaon. This prompted a second appeal to the High Court in 1996. The central question for the High Court was whether a Meo widow possesses the right to sell non-ancestral property, specifically considering the Wajib-ul-arz—a historical village record documenting local customs and property rights.
While the lower appellate court had cited a 1969 precedent to argue that a widow’s power to sell property is naturally restricted for both ancestral and non-ancestral land, the High Court disagreed. In its January 22 verdict, the High Court clarified that any restrictive references to “property” within the Wajib-ul-arz must be interpreted as applying strictly to ancestral property, not to property of a non-ancestral nature.
“Furthermore, this Court has consistently adopted a pragmatic, progressive, and constitutionally aligned approach while examining customary restrictions on the rights of women in matters of alienation of property. It has been unequivocally held that any custom which seeks to curtail, dilute, or abrogate the proprietary rights of a female exclusively on the basis of religion, gender, or sex-based classification is inherently vulnerable to challenge and cannot withstand the constitutional mandate of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India,” the judge added.
The High Court concluded that the lower courts had reached their decisions by failing to properly evaluate the evidence through an accurate legal lens. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that Rehmani’s decision to sell the property was made in good faith, specifically to provide for the well-being of her granddaughter.
“Though Janvi was not proved to be the biological daughter of Akkal, the record unmistakably establishes that she was indeed the daughter of Smt. Rehmani. The impugned alienation was, thus, effected not for purposes relatable to the estate of the deceased husband but solely for the bona fide and pressing needs of Smt. Rehmani herself, particularly for meeting the marriage expenses of her granddaughter, the daughter of Janvi a fact duly proved on record,” it held.
The Court further clarified that if a property is classified as non-ancestral and the sale is proven to serve a legitimate legal necessity of the owner, the transaction cannot be invalidated simply because the deceased’s relatives did not provide consent.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the previous rulings of both the trial court and the first appellate court. The Court ordered, “The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside, and the suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff stands dismissed.”
In these proceedings, the appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Ashish Aggarwal and advocate Vishan Pundir, while the respondents were represented by Senior Advocate ML Sarin and advocate Hemani Sarin.
