SC Upholds Widow’s Right to Matruka Property; Agreement to Sell Confers No Ownership Before Registered Sale Deed

SC Upholds Widow’s Right to Matruka Property; Agreement to Sell Confers No Ownership Before Registered Sale Deed

This appeal stemmed from a family property dispute following the death of Chand Khan, whose estate became contested between his widow Zoharbee (appellant) and brother Imam Khan (respondent). The core dispute related to two parcels of land, Survey Nos. 22/3 and 22/1 of Gut Nos. 107 and 126. Zoharbee claimed entitlement to three-fourths of the estate as the sole widow of a childless Muslim man under Mohammedan law, while Imam Khan argued that the land at Gut No. 126 had already been transferred during Chand Khan’s lifetime through an Agreement to Sell (November 1999) to third parties, Pandit Fakirrao Bodkhe and Bhausaheb Fakirrao Bodhke.

The Civil Court (1999) accepted Imam Khan’s version, holding that the sale agreement, supported by witness testimony, showed transfer of ownership prior to Chand Khan’s death. It thus excluded the property from partition. Zoharbee’s suit was partly decreed only for the portion sold to another buyer (Ayub Khan), who had not contested the claim.

However, the First Appellate Court (2011) reversed the finding, ruling that an Agreement to Sell does not transfer title and that ownership remains until execution of a registered sale deed. Therefore, at the time of Chand Khan’s death, the property still legally vested in him and formed part of his matruka (inheritable) estate. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) subsequently upheld this decision, rejecting Imam Khan’s second appeal in 2012.

Main Issue: Whether land subject to an unexecuted “Agreement to Sell” ceases to be part of the deceased’s matruka property under Mohammedan Law, and if the widow could claim her lawful share therein.

SC Held: The Apex Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled law that an agreement to sell does not confer ownership or create an interest in property unless followed by a registered conveyance as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Citing Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2012) and R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar (2025), the Court reaffirmed that only a registered sale deed transfers title.

Thus, the property continued to belong to Chand Khan at his death and thus constituted matruka property under Mohammedan Law. The Court referred to Jamil Ahmad v. Vth ADJ, Moradabad (2001) 8 SCC 599 and Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, explaining that matruka comprises all assets left by a deceased Muslim, to be distributed after payment of debts and bequests. Since Chand Khan died childless, his widow Zoharbee was entitled to one-fourth (¼) share of the estate, while the remainder devolved upon the residuary heirs.

The Court also criticised the Civil Court’s poor English translation of its judgment, emphasising that “in matters of law, every word and comma matters.” It reminded lower courts to ensure accurate translations to avoid misinterpretation in appellate proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below