Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Rukeya Sultana Ahmed And 4 Ors on 21 May, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010190212019
2025:GAU-AS:6358
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RFA/4/2021
FIRDUSHA HASMI AHMED AND 2 ORS
D/O- LATE HASMI IQBAL AHMED, W/O- IQBAL HUSSAIN HAZARIKA, R/O-
WARD NO. 13, K.B. ROAD, NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.
NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST.-LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787001.
2: NITISHA HASMI AHMED
D/O- LATE HASMI IQBAL AHMED
W/O- NILUTPAL BAISHYA
R/O- H/NO. 3
BYE LANE NO. 4
HENGRABARI
GANESHGURI
P.O. AND P.S. DISPUR
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
3: INTIZA HASMI AHMED
D/O- LATE HASMI IQBAL AHMED
R/O- WARD NO. 2
JENGONIKOTIA CHARIALI
P.O. DHAIALI
P.S. AND DIST.- SIBSAGAR
ASSAM
PIN- 785697
VERSUS
RUKEYA SULTANA AHMED AND 4 ORS
W/O- LATE SARIF AHMED, R/O- WARD NO. 12, K.B. ROAD, MOUZA-
LAKHIMPUR, P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR,
ASSAM, PIN- 787001.
2:MD. HAIDEE ISTIQUE AHMED
Page No.# 2/4
S/O- LATE SARIF AHMED
R/O- WARD NO. 12
K.B. ROAD
MOUZA- LAKHIMPUR
P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787001.
3:MRS. MANJU ARA AHMED
W/O- MD. PODIUM AZAD
D/O- LATE SARIF AHMED
R/O- H/NO. 11
6 MILE DARANDAH ROAD
NEAR KABARISTHAN
GUWAHATI
P.O. KHANAPARA
P.S. DISPUR
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781022.
4:BILKISH AHMED
W/O- MD. AMINUL ISLAM BORA
D/O- LATE SARIF AHMED
R/O- H/NO. 10
6 MILE DARANDAH ROAD
NEAR KABARISTHAN
GUWAHATI
P.O. KHANAPARA
P.S. DISPUR
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781022.
5:MRS. PARVEEN AHMED
D/O- LATE SARIF AHMED
R/O- H/NO. 9
6 MILE DARANDAH ROAD
NEAR KABARISTHAN
GUWAHATI
P.O. KHANAPARA
P.S. DISPUR
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781022
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA, MR. K ISLAM,MR S DEKA,MR A
RASHID,MR M CHETIA
Page No.# 3/4
Advocate for the Respondent : MR K TALUKDAR (R-1,2,3), MR B C TALUKDAR (R-1,2,3)
:: PRESENT ::
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Appellants: Mr. T.H. Hazarika,
Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.C. Talukdar,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025.
Date of Judgment : 21.05.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)
Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel representing the appellants as well as Mr. B.C.
Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whereby
the judgment dated 04.05.2019 and decree dated 10.05.2019 respectively passed by the court of learned
Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Title Suit No.23/2016 is under challenge.
3. The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether in the absence of any sons, the
appellants being the only daughters of late Hasmi Iqbal Ahmed are entitled to inherit 1/9 th of his
properties after his death or 2/3rds of his properties.
4. The learned trial court relied upon Section 53 of the Mahomedan Law and held that the Sunni
Mahomedan Law does not recognize any right of representation and sons' daughter do not inherit as
representing their respective father, but in their own right as granddaughters of the deceased. For this
reason, the trial court held that the daughters of late Hasmi Iqbal Ahmed are to inherit 1/9 th shares of
the properties left by their deceased father.
5. The learned counsel Mr. Hazarika, has relied upon Section 63 of the Mahomedan Law the table of
shares of Section 63 shows that if there are two or more daughters, they are collectively entitled to 2/3 rd
of the shares of the property left behind by their father.
6. Mr. Talukdar also dealt with Section 63 of the Mahomedan Law in a different manner, which this
Court does not find necessary to highlight.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides, this Court is of the
opinion that the submissions made by Mr. Hazarika has force in it. According to the table of shares
regarding Sunni Law annexed with Section 63 of the Mahomedan Law, as mentioned in Mulla's
Principles of Mahomedan Law, the appellants being the only daughters of late Hasmi Iqbal Ahmed, are
entitled to 2/3rd of the properties left behind by their deceased father. Therefore, the Issue Nos. 2 and 3
are decided accordingly in favour of the appellants.
Page No.# 4/4
8. So far as the Issue Nos.1 and 4 are concerned, there is a cause of action for the suit filed by the
appellants and they are entitled to the relief as prayed for. This Court is in agreement with the decision
of the trial court. However, the appellants are entitled to collectively inherit 2/3 rd of the properties left
behind by their father.
9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is modified
accordingly. The appellants are entitled to collectively inherit 2/3 rd of the properties left behind by their
father. Prepare the Decree accordingly.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
