Muhammad Husain Khan vs.

Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai

NAME: ABHIRNJAN SINHA

PROGRAM: BBA LLB [HONS]

SUBJECT: FAMILY LAW-II

SEMESTER:VI

ROLL NO: UG/03/BBALLB/2021/013

SCHOOL: SCHOOL OF LAW AND JUSTICE

SUBMITTED TO: PROMIT SIR

Overview

Hindu Mitakshara law recognizes the idea of a will, allowing a testator to distribute their assets according to
their wishes. A testator's will is a legally binding document that takes effect upon their death. Nonetheless,
Hindu law places restrictions and requirements on testamentary power, including those related to the testator's
capacity, subject matter, maintenance, etc. The court's strategy in this instance involved interpreting and
applying the principles of Mitakshara Hindu law with regard to sons' rights to ancestral property.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• Ganesh Prasad (A) was the owner of a large and prosperous estate in this case.
He died on May 10th, leaving behind one son, Bindeshri Prasad (S).
• Ganesh Prasad (A) inherited certain possessions from his maternal grandfather, including a hamlet,
and left his entire inheritance to a trust for religious and philanthropic purposes in his 1911 will. He
left nothing for his son or his daughter-in-law.
• Ganesh Prasad is said to have created a new will in 1914. He made a Will for these estates, giving his
son (Bindeshri Prasad) a life estate and leaving the possessions entirely to the son's widow after his
death.
• Several factors contributed to the determination that the will was legitimate. Despite their tense
relationship, there were signs that they had resolved their differences when Ganesh Prasad was sick in
his final days. The Collector, who was familiar with Ganesh Prasad's handwriting, also confirmed it.

• During Ganesh Prasad's lifetime, his son accumulated debts that he was unable to repay, and creditors
obtained a money decree against him.

• The estate was sold at a court auction to satisfy the money decree. The son filed a petition, alleging
that the creditor's lawsuit was fraudulent. The son died in 1926, and his widow, W, who was substituted
for him, claimed that the son S only had a life interest in the land and that she was the sole owner, so
the sale did not bind her.1

1
Muhammad Husain Khan vs. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai Case Summary 1937 PC - Law Planet, Legal News, Law
Updates & Law Exams Preparation (June 5, 2022), https://lawplanet.in/muhammad-husain-khan-vs-babu-kishva-nandan-
sahai/.
 • RELEVANT PROVISIONS

The Muhammad Husain Khan vs. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai (1937) case clarified important provisions of
Mitakshara Hindu law governing ancestral property rights.
Ancestral Property Definition:
The Court emphasized that "ancestral property" only includes assets inherited by a Hindu male from his
father, paternal grandfather, or great paternal grandfather.

Property inherited from a maternal grandfather is separate property in the possession of the daughter's son.

Power of disposal:

Ganesh Prasad (A) had complete control over the property inherited from his maternal grandfather.
His will, written in 1911, left his entire estate to a trust for religious and philanthropic causes.
Bindeshri Prasad (S), the son, received no direct benefits from the estate.

Rights of Son:

The Court made it clear that a son's entitlement to inherited property is based on his birth.
The property was not subject to Bindeshri Prasad's widow's claim due to his debts or the estate's court auction.

ISSUES RAISED
• Does this case deal with the areas of family law that overlap, such as intestate succession, inheritance,
wills and probate, and legal heirs?
• Did Giri Bala continue to hold her status as the only heir to the property in question?
• Would the will that Bindeshri Prasad executed in Allahabad come into play or come into effect,
impacting Giri Bala's status as the only heir?
• Did the court discuss the will's legality and implications for Giri Bala's and other interested parties'
inheritance rights?
• Was the court able to balance the opposing claims and interests of the parties, especially with regard
to the legal heirs' rights and the suit property's testamentary disposition?

ARGUMENTS BY Petitioner

Modification of the Plaint:

Bindeshri Prasad's wife, Giri Bala, filed a petition to change the plaint.
According to her father-in-law Ganesh Prasad's will, she asserted, her husband's life interest in the estate
terminated upon his passing. 2

Giri Bala desired to make her claim known as the only heir to the property in question.

Validity of the Sale:

Due to Giri Bala's assertion of complete ownership, she contested the land's auction and subsequent sale.
She contended that, given her rights, the sale ought to be declared void even though it was legally binding
on her husband.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT:

Opposition to Amendment: The defendants, who make up the respondent, were against the plaint's
amendment.

They argued that Giri Bala was not permitted to include a different cause of action that directly affected her.
The amendment should not have been approved because it altered the plaint's content.
Validity of the Sale: Bindeshri Prasad's debts, according to the respondent, supported the auction and sale.3
They contested Giri Bala's assertion that her father-in-law's will give her complete ownership.

JUDGMENT

Because it was his distinct property, Ganesh Prasad had complete power of disposal, and the daughter-in-law
became the absolute owner by the will. Therefore, execution actions against the husband had no bearing on
her claim to the property. The Court held that the Mitakshara clearly stated that "ancestral property" is property
inherited by a Hindu male from his father, paternal grandfather, or great paternal grandfather only, and that
property inherited from a maternal grandfather is separate property in the hands of the daughter's son.4

According to the Court, property inherited through a woman's line of descent is not coparcenary property, to
which the son is entitled by birth.

CONCLUSION

2
Muhammad Husain Khan and Others v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai, Judgment
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49625607dba348f016f8a.

3
ibid
4
MUHAMMAD HUSAIN KHAN v. BABU KISHVA NANDAN SAHAI, Legal Vidhiya (Aug. 30, 2023),
https://legalvidhiya.com/tag/muhammad-husain-khan-v-babu-kishva-nandan-sahai/.
Although the Mitakshara school of thought continues to have an impact, people now have more freedom to
draft their own wills, allowing for the testamentary distribution of both inherited and privately owned property.
Nonetheless, the probate procedure entails court examination to guarantee the legitimacy of wills.
This modern legal position in India's inheritance and succession planning domains reflects a subtle equilibrium
between custom and developing individual rights. This ruling emphasized the idea that birth determines
inheritance rights under Mitakshara Hindu law, thereby clarifying the rights of sons in joint family property.