Inheritance Rights and Temporary Injunction in Land Acquisition Compensation - A Case Study


Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

Case name: Fakirasab v. Syedusab

Citation: 2004 AIR - KANT. H.C. R. 3071

1. Introduction 

The plaintiff, a Muslim, initiated a lawsuit for a 1/3rd share in the compensation awarded for the acquisition of a land. He claimed the land to be ancestral and belonging to him and the defendants, who were also Muslims and his relatives.

2. Request for Temporary Injunction 

The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 from withdrawing the compensation amount deposited in an execution petition. He alleged that they had already withdrawn a substantial amount and that he would suffer irreparable loss if they were allowed to withdraw further.

3. Trial Court’s Decision 

The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s application, holding that he had no prima facie case. The court reasoned that the land was granted to the father of defendants 1 and 2 as an individual tenant under the Land Reforms Act and that the rule of joint family under Hindu law did not apply to Muslims.

4. Appeal to the High Court 

The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, contending that the trial court had erred in applying Hindu law and ignoring the definition of joint family under the Land Reforms Act. He argued that he represented a group of co-heirs who had inherited the land from their common ancestor.

5. High Court’s Decision  

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s order and granting the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The High Court held that the trial court had failed to consider the material on record and the settled principles of law governing the grant of temporary injunction.

6. Legal Provisions 

The legal provisions discussed in this decision include the Land Reforms Act and the principles of Muslim law pertaining to inheritance and joint family. The court also discussed the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions.

Judgment: 11 August, 2004.