The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, does not override the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and Muslims owning properties have the right to transfer properties through “settlement deeds,” under the 1957 Act, said the High Court of Karnataka.
“The application of the 1957 Act is not dependent on religious faith or belief... In other words, the Act is religion-neutral, and any person competent to contract can execute a deed of settlement in respect of the property owned by him or her, whether movable or immovable, irrespective of his or her religious faith or belief,” the court observed.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde passed the order while setting aside a decree passed in 2013 by a Bengaluru city civil court, which had set aside settlement deeds registered in 1965 by T.A. Abdul Jabbar, who owned several properties. The civil court had ruled that “there is no concept of transfer by way of ‘settlement’ to settle the properties among the Mohammadans.” The High Court passed the order while allowing the petition filed by Sultan Mohiyuddin and two others, residents of Jayanagar in Bengaluru, challenging the civil court’s order.
However, the High Court said that the “settlement”, under the Act of 1957 is a contract involving the property; and it involves the owner and the beneficiary. “Since it is a contract, any person competent to contract irrespective of his or her religious faith or belief can enter into a contract of settlement either as a settler or beneficiary.”
Shariat law
“The Shariat law, which is believed to be the divine instructions of the Almighty may not envisage all types of contracts which are recognised under contemporary law. That does not mean that the contract entered through a ‘deed of settlement’ is impermissible among the Mohammadans. More importantly, what is not expressly recognised in Shariat law is not necessarily something which is forbidden. It may still be in tune with the philosophy of the Quran,” the High Court observed.
Problem with interpretation
Also, the High Court said that the interpretation that the Mohammadans cannot enter into ‘contract of settlement’ recognised under the Act of 1957 violates the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Noticing that when the Act of 1937 was brought into force, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was already in force and the Act of 1899 also recognises the “settlement”, the High Court pointed out that that the term “settlement” defined in Section 2(24) of the Act of 1899 is in substance similar to the definition of the term “settlement” in Section 2(q) of the Act of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Hence, the High Court said, the transfer of property by way of ‘‘settlement’’ under the 1957 Act is very much permissible even among the Mohammadans.
