No legality can be attached to a fatwa regarding ownership of an immovable property: Delhi HC

No legality can be attached to a fatwa regarding ownership of an immovable property: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court (HC) stated that no legality can be attached to a fatwa regarding the ownership of immovable property, and such a declaration cannot bind a third party

Brief facts of the case-

A suit for possession and recovery of damages was filed by three Plaintiffs i.e., Mr. Mohd Ashraf, Ms. Sadia Saad Yusuf and Mr. Javed Iqbal, who were the Petitioners, against Mr. Abdul Wahid Siddique i.e., the Respondent/Defendant. The case of the Petitioners was that they are the owners of the suit property, and they traced back their title to one Mst. Musharraf Begum through six registered sale deeds and a fatwa.

The plaintiff said that the Defendant was a tenant of Mst. Musharraf Begum and has no right in the suit property and that the plaintiff purchased the suit property in the year 2002. That in 2011 a notice demanding arrears of rent and vacation of premises was issued to the Defendant.

The Defendant challenged the ownership of the Plaintiffs on various grounds leading to the filing of the suit for possession. The Defendant contended that the original owner had made a declaration, transferring ownership in favour of the Tenants. He argued that they had adverse possession of the property since they were in possession of the property for more than 32 years and never paid rent.

The defendant further submitted that the original owner had declared that the tenants would be the owner upon her death and the petitioners were trying to grab the property through false and fabricated documents.

The application was filed before the trial court by the petitioner as plaintiffs in the trial court but the trial court dismissed the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC after one and a half years of arguments heard. The petitioner impugned the order in the high court.

The issues for consideration in this case were:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating third party interest in the suit property?

3. Whether the defendant has become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession?

Observations of the Court

The single-judge bench of Justice Pratibha M.Singh observed that the trial court had been adjourning the matter for orders for more than one and a half years which was contrary to the timeline.

The HC observed that since the fatwa on the basis of which the sale deed was executed in the favour of the petitioners was not verified as a genuine document, the foundational facts of the case were yet to be established. It opined that the respondent's adverse possession was also in question and required to be adjudicated.

Recognizing rights of ownership based on a fatwa which has not been examined or sanctioned by a court of law would be contrary to the Constitutional scheme, the Court held that no legality or validity was attached to a fatwa.

The HC showed annoyance over delay on behalf of the trial court however upon evaluation the court decided not to interfere with the dismissal of an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

Decision of the HC

The High Court found that a Fatwa cannot be accepted as sole basis of a property transfer in the eyes of law and remarked.

Regarding the issue of possession on the basis of 'fatwa', the court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India and Ors.It stated that the fatwa cannot be implemented on a third party and added that imposition of fatwa would be illegal in itself.

The HC stated, "There cannot be any legality or validity attached to a fatwa, especially in respect of ownership in an immovable property. Such a declaration would also not be binding on any third party."

The HC did not interfere with the trial court's dismissal under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and directed the trial court to conclude the suit within 6 months and pass the judgment on or before 31 July 2021 after considering the fact that the suit was more than 9 years old.

The application was filed by the Petitioners for seeking condonation of 25 days' delay in re-filing the application for stay of the trial court proceedings till the disposal of the petition, condonation of delay was granted and the application was disposed of.