Court denies Godrej Properties' plea in Rs 227 crore land deal plea

A joint civil judge in Nagpur has rejected an application from Godrej Properties and a local Agrawal family. In this application, they raised concerns about the validity of a lawsuit challenging a Rs 227 crore land deal between them. This challenge is rooted in the provisions of Muslim law. The contentious deal between Godrej and the Agrawals encompassed 58 acres of land near Besa in Ghogli village. It has faced challenges on multiple fronts, with one key argument being that, under Muslim law, a mother cannot act as the natural guardian of children.

Both Godrej and the Agrawals contested the validity of the lawsuit against the land deal, citing that it exceeded the limitation period. However, the court has rejected their plea, citing principles of Muslim law as the basis for its decision. According to Muslim law, when a person dies, their estate automatically passes to their heirs at that moment. These heirs continue to hold the estate jointly without division. If an heir wishes to claim their share, they can file a suit for its recovery. Importantly, the period of limitation for such claims does not commence from the time of the deceased's death but rather from the date of an express ouster or denial of title.

Godrej Properties acquired the land from the Agrawal family for Rs 227 crore in 2022. Notably, the land originally belonged to the Abdul family, from whom the Agrawals had made the purchase back in 1988. However, a member of the Abdul family, Abdul Bashir, challenged the entire land deal between Godrej and the Agrawals. Following the passing of the family patriarch, Abdul Wahab, his wife Khairunisa executed the deal with the Agrawals in 1988. This included the shares of their eight children. Bashir's argument hinged on the assertion that, according to Muslim law, the mother cannot serve as the legal guardian of the children.

Bashir contested the appointment of Madhukar Purohit as the guardian of the minor children, pointing out the absence of any document indicating Purohit's legal appointment as their guardian. Moreover, Bashir challenged the 1988 deal on the grounds that, as per Muslim personal law, the mother cannot be the natural guardian of the children. Instead, the father or a person designated by the father is responsible for representing the children. In cases where such an appointment is lacking, the mother must secure an endorsement from the court to act as the natural guardian.

The court concluded that the case should not be dismissed outright at this juncture; rather, it should proceed to adjudication to determine the rights of the parties involved. The plea that challenged the land deal also raised concerns about two children being incorrectly categorized as minors during the execution of the land deal by their mother, constituting what Bashir argued was a fraudulent act. In light of these considerations, the case will continue to be heard in court, with the issues surrounding the land deal and Muslim law at the forefront of legal deliberations.

Next (The Indian government gears up to launch a new housing subsidy for urban poor next month)

Court denies Godrej Properties' plea in Rs 227 crore land deal plea

This Month

Overview

Explore

Join Us