Sunni Succession: Male Heirs Entitled to Double Share of Female Heirs in Ancestral Property Partition

The dispute concerns ancestral agricultural lands in Village Nawagarh and Madanpur

The plaintiffs (three daughters of late Sahban Khan) filed a suit for declaration of title, 1/5th share, partition, and permanent injunction against the defendants (the LRs of Sahban Khan's two sons, Nawab Khan and Arman Khan)

The plaintiffs alleged the suit property was joint family property, while Defendant No. 1 claimed exclusive ownership over "Schedule B" property and asserted that a prior partition occurred in 1992

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, awarding a 1/9th share to each daughter and a 1/3rd share to each son's branch

The First Appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, confirming the Trial Court's judgment

The legal representatives of Defendant No. 1 subsequently filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC

Whether the lower courts correctly applied the principles of Sunni Hanafi law in the apportionment of shares between male and female heirs

Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the joint nature of the property and the absence of a prior partition warrant interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC

Sunni Hanafi school of Muslim Law, which mandates that where there are both male and female heirs, a male heir receives a share equal to twice that of a female heir (residuary status)

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeals to "substantial questions of law"

Bholaram v. Ammerchand (1981) and Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth (2026), establishing that concurrent findings of fact, even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed unless they are found to be perverse or based on no evidence

Since the deceased left two sons and three daughters, the estate was divided into seven units (two units for each son and one for each daughter). Consequently, the sons collectively receive 2/3 (split as 1/3 each), and the daughters effectively receive 1/3 (split as 1/9 each)

The court found this calculation strictly consistent with the "double share for males" principle of Sunni law

Regarding the procedural challenge, the Court observed that the appellants’ arguments essentially sought a re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence—specifically the claim of prior sale and mutation—which is impermissible under Section 100 CPC

The court noted that because the defendants attempted to unilaterally alienate the property, the grant of a permanent injunction was a necessary legal safeguard for the co-sharers

The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower courts were maintained