Legal Review and Analysis of Zoharbee & Anr vs Imam Khan D Thr LRS & Ors 2025 INSC 1245

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Zoharbee & Anr. vs. Imam Khan (D) Thr. LRS. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1245
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

This judgment extensively deals with the following legal provisions and principles:

• The Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
  Section 54: Defines "sale" and explicitly states that a contract for the sale of immovable property (an agreement to sell) does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

• Mohammedan Law (Muslim Personal Law):
  Concept of 'Matruka': The property left behind by a deceased Muslim.
  Intestate Succession Rules: The specific shares prescribed for legal heirs under Sunni Muslim law.

• Key Legal Precedents Cited:
  Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656
  Jamil Ahmad v. Vth ADJ, Moradabad, (2001) 8 SCC 599
  Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law

3. Basic Judgment Details

This appeal arose from a dispute over the inheritance of property left by one Chand Khan, who died issueless. The appellants were his widow, Zoharbee, and the respondents were the legal heirs of his brother, Imam Khan. The core dispute was whether two specific plots of land formed part of Chand Khan's 'matruka' (inheritable estate) upon his death.

Zoharbee claimed that one property had been transferred to his brother years before his death and the other was subject to an 'Agreement to Sell' executed during his lifetime. Therefore, she argued, these properties should not be considered part of the inheritable estate. The brother's heirs contended that all property owned by Chand Khan at the time of his death was 'matruka' and should be distributed according to Muslim law.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of Zoharbee. The First Appellate Court reversed this, holding the entire property was 'matruka'. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The Supreme Court was approached to settle the legal questions conclusively.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Legal Issue

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was twofold:

1. Whether an 'Agreement to Sell' an immovable property, executed by the deceased in his lifetime but where the sale deed was not executed before his death, excludes that property from being considered as part of his 'matruka' property?

2. How should the 'matruka' property of a Muslim dying issueless be distributed among his surviving heirs?

In-Depth Analysis of the Court's Reasoning

A. The Legal Nature of an 'Agreement to Sell' and its Impact on Ownership

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating a fundamental principle of property law. Relying heavily on its landmark judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), the Court emphatically stated:

• An agreement to sell does not confer any title or create any interest in the property in favour of the prospective buyer.

• A transfer of immovable property can only be effected by a registered sale deed as mandated by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

• The rights of a prospective buyer under an agreement to sell are primarily governed by Section 53A of the TP Act, which offers a shield (a right to protect possession) against the seller, but it does not amount to a transfer of ownership.

Applying this to the facts, the Court held that since the sale deed for the property was executed after Chand Khan's death by his widow, the property was still legally vested in Chand Khan at the moment of his death. Consequently, the Agreement to Sell was irrelevant for determining the composition of the inheritable estate.

B. The Concept of 'Matruka' and the Scheme of Distribution under Muslim Law

The Court then elaborated on the concept of 'Matruka'. Citing Jamil Ahmad (supra) and other sources, it defined 'matruka' simply as the property, both movable and immovable, left behind by a deceased Muslim.

The Court outlined the sequence for distribution:

1. Payment of Debts and Legacies: First, the funeral expenses, debts of the deceased, and any valid legacies (subject to the limit of one-third of the estate if in favour of a non-heir) must be paid.

2. Distribution to 'Sharers': The remaining estate is to be distributed among the prescribed "Sharers" as per Muslim law.

3. The Court referred to Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law and the Holy Quran (Chapter 4, Verse 12) to determine the specific shares. It held that in the case of a childless man, his widow is entitled to a 1/4th share of the 'matruka' property. The remaining 3/4th share devolves upon the residuaries. In this case, since the deceased had no descendants (children) or ascendants (parents), his brother, as a residuary, was entitled to the remaining 3/4th share.

The Court criticized the Trial Court for considering the incomplete sale and excluding the property from the estate. It also noted that the widow (Zoharbee), while executing the sale deed after her husband's death, could only legally transfer the title to her own 1/4th share, not the entire property, invoking the maxim "nemo dat quod non habet" (no one can give what they do not have).

Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the widow, Zoharbee. The Court issued the following consequential directions and findings:

1. The judgment of the First Appellate Court and the High Court was upheld.

2. It was conclusively determined that the property subject to the Agreement to Sell formed part of Chand Khan's 'matruka' property.

3. The 'matruka' property was to be distributed as follows:
   Zoharbee (Widow): 1/4th Share
   Legal Heirs of Imam Khan (Brother): 3/4th Share

4. The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of translation of the Trial Court's judgment from the vernacular language to English, emphasizing that in legal matters, accurate translation is indispensable for the administration of justice.

5. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: According to the Supreme Court's judgment in Zoharbee vs. Imam Khan (2025 INSC 1245), what is the legal effect of an 'Agreement to Sell' an immovable property on its ownership?

A. It transfers a beneficial interest in the property to the prospective buyer.
B. It makes the property non-inheritable, excluding it from the seller's estate upon death.
C. It does not, by itself, create any interest in or transfer ownership of the property.
D. It is equivalent to a registered sale deed for the purposes of inheritance.

C. It does not, by itself, create any interest in or transfer ownership of the property.

Question 2: In the aforementioned case, how did the Supreme Court rule the 'matruka' property of a childless Muslim man should be distributed between his widow and his brother?

A. The widow gets 1/2 share and the brother gets 1/2 share.
B. The widow gets 1/8th share and the brother gets the residue.
C. The widow gets 1/4th share and the brother gets 3/4th share.
D. The widow and the brother inherit equally as per the Agreement to Sell.

C. The widow gets 1/4th share and the brother gets 3/4th share.