The Karnataka High Court has made a strong recommendation to the Union and State governments to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to fulfill the vision laid out in the Preamble of the Constitution. This observation came while deciding a family property dispute under Muslim personal law, exposing clear disparities in inheritance rights among male and female heirs.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, while pronouncing the judgment, stated:
“The enactment of legislation on Uniform Civil Code as enshrined under Article 44 of the Constitution of India will achieve the object and aspirations enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, bringing about a true secular democratic republic, unity, integrity of the nation, securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.”“Personal laws based on religion make a difference among the women though they are citizens of India. Under Hindu Law, a daughter is treated equally to a son, but under Mahomedan Law, this is not the case.”
Case Background:
The judgment came in the case of Samiulla Khan & Others vs. Sirajuddin Macci (RFA No.935/2020 c/w RFA Cross Objection No.33/2023), concerning partition of property left behind by Shahnaz Begum. Her brothers and sister (the appellants) had filed a suit seeking division of her assets.
They claimed equal shares in two properties:
- Schedule ‘A’ Property – bought during the service of the defendant (Shahnaz’s husband), in her name.
- Schedule ‘B’ Property – purchased after the defendant retired, while Shahnaz was employed as a teacher.
The appellants argued that both were self-acquired properties of the deceased and demanded 50% share for the plaintiffs and 50% for the defendant husband.
The trial court, however, gave a divided judgment, granting smaller shares to the siblings and a majority share to the husband. The appellants then challenged this order.
Upon careful analysis, the High Court held that both properties were joint acquisitions by the deceased Shahnaz Begum and her husband. The Court said:
“Just because the suit schedule 'B' property was purchased after the retirement of the defendant, that alone cannot be a factor to say that the deceased Shahnaz Begum had acquired the suit schedule 'B' property out of her own earnings.”
Read Also:- X Corp Challenges Sahyog Portal: Karnataka High Court Hears Arguments on IT Act Provisions
Therefore, the claim that the properties were exclusively owned by the deceased was rejected. The Court concluded:
The Court applied Muslim personal law to determine the shares of the heirs. It explained that under this law, husbands and brothers are 'sharers', while a sister is a 'residuary', receiving her share only after sharers' portions are allocated.
Referring to this difference, the Court observed:
“The brother and sister under Hindu Law enjoy equal rights. But under Mahomedan Law, a sister receives less as a residuary, while her brothers are sharers. This reflects the inequality that a Uniform Civil Code can eliminate.”
Thus, the plaintiffs’ argument for a 50% share based on equal entitlement was not accepted. The Court modified the trial court’s ruling and clearly defined the shares as:
- Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 (brothers): 1/10th share each in both properties
- Plaintiff No.3 (sister): 1/20th share in both properties
- Defendant (husband): 3/4th share in both properties
The appeal of the plaintiffs was dismissed, while the husband's cross-appeal was partly allowed.
The judgment took a broader constitutional view and touched upon Article 44, which encourages the State to secure a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens. The Court referenced historic debates in the Constituent Assembly, stating:
“The chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his most illustrious speech has argued in favour of Uniform Civil Code.”
The Court also cited judgments from the Supreme Court in:
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
- Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
- John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)
All of which had emphasized the need for a Uniform Civil Code.
Court's Appeal to Government:
“The Court hopes that both the Union and State will make an endeavour to enact the Uniform Civil Code in line with Article 44 of the Constitution,” the judge stated.In conclusion, the High Court directed its Registrar General to send a copy of this judgment to the Principal Law Secretaries of both the Union of India and the State of Karnataka.
This decision not only resolved a family property dispute but also reignited the national debate on the urgency of legal uniformity in personal laws, particularly for securing women’s rights and upholding constitutional equality.
Appearance: Advocate Irshad Ahmed for A1, A3 & LRs
Advocate Mohammed Sayeed for Respondent.
Case Title: Samiulla Khan & Others AND Sirajuddin Macci
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.935 OF 2020 (PAR) C/W RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.33 OF 2023
