Responsibility of finances of paralysed father and selling his assets

Responsibility of finances of paralysed father and selling his assets

Responsibility of finances of paralysed father and selling his assets


We are 6 sisters, 3 brothers and my beloved mother. My dad resided in India and in 2007, suffered a severe stroke which paralysed him and made him bed ridden. He had no comprehension or any idea of the surrounding and literally was in the state of senile.

My dad and his uncle shared land and a house which they inherited from their dad. My dad’s uncle and his sons, who are in South Africa and Australia, consented that so long as my dad is alive, the lands and house which they shared, my dad can benefit and use the income from it.

When my dad was in such a paralysed state, my brother(s) discussed with my dad’s uncle and their children in South Africa and Australia that we are sending you documents which requires your consent and we will sell and distribute the land and house accordingly. As it required my dad’s signature and my dad’s condition being such, how it was done is questionable.

My questions honourable Mufti Sahib are as follows:

(1) Can my brother(s) act in selling my dad’s share of land without the consent/permission from rest of the siblings?

(2) Can my brother(s) without asking rest of the siblings, use the money which came in my dad’s share, as they saw fit?

(3) When my brother(s) was questioned regarding the share, the answer given was that it is my dad’s, who are you sisters to question? I can do what I want. Is this correct?

(4) Should the brother(s) have consulted the rest of the siblings regarding the share and its usage which my dad inherited knowing my dad’s paralysis condition?

(5) My dad sadly died after long illness in 2018. As per Indian law, all the remainder land which were under my dad’s name, and not yet not sold, transfer to all the children. The expenditure which may have/were incurred whilst my dad was alive without any knowledge or prior consent from siblings, the brother(s) is levying it now on to the rest of the siblings. The brother(s) is saying that they will minus the expenditure amount from the individual sibling’s share which as stated they did without the permission or consent from the siblings, can they do that?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم


There are two separate issues here which should not be confused.

First, when your father fell ill and could not make decisions for himself, it became the responsibility of your brother(s) to manage his financial matters. During this period until his demise, it was necessary upon the brothers to maintain your father’s assets and avoid selling them unless there were exceptional circumstances which required their sale. Likewise, if any income was received from these assets, this belonged to the father and therefore should have only been spent on the father or his assets in a reasonable manner.

Second, once your father passed away, everything that belonged to him including his assets and rental income and otherwise is subject to the laws of inheritance and is to be distributed according to the shares fixed by Shariah. Assuming your grandparents were not alive at the time of his demise, the inheritance is to be distributed as follows:

Wife – 1/8 (12/96) – 12.5%

Each of the three sons – 14/96 – 12.58%

Each of the three daughters – 7/96 – 7.29%

Your questions are now addressed:

(1) Whilst your father was alive, your brothers did not have the right to sell the father’s share of the land whether with your consent or otherwise. This is the default position that the father’s assets cannot be sold, unless there are exceptional circumstances in which case, all close family members including the sisters should be consulted.

Once the father passed away, and if they had not sold the land, all the heirs (mother and all siblings) would have had to consent to its sale, as they would have all become owners of it.

(2) The income from the sale of the land belonged to your father. Your brother(s) was primarily responsible for your father’s finances therefore they were not required to seek consent from the sisters for reasonable use of the money on the father or to maintain his assets. They were not permitted to spend it otherwise, and if they did, they must return it to the father’s estate and include it within the inheritance.

Once your father passed away, all the money belonging to your father and income received subsequently cannot be spent by anyone, because it is subject to the rules of inheritance, as outlined above.

(3) This has been answered above. The brother(s) should not have sold the father’s land, and if there were exceptional circumstances, they should have consulted the sisters. Once it is sold, the brother(s) can spend the proceeds in a reasonable manner only on the father or maintaining his assets, not otherwise. The sisters’ consent is not required in this regard.

(4) See number 3.

(5) As the brothers were managing the land on behalf of your father, all reasonable costs incurred can be deducted prior to the distribution of the inheritance.

قال الكاساني في البدائع (٥/١٥٥) في البيوع: والأم وإن كانت لها وفور الشفقة، لكن ليس لها كمال الرأي لقصور عقل النساء عادة، فلا تثبت لهن ولاية التصرف في المال ولا لوصيهن، انتهى. وقال الموصلي في الاختيار (٤/١٤) في الحضانة: فوَّض الولاية في المال والعقود إلى الرجال، لأنهم بذلك أقوم وعليه أقدر، وفوض التربية إلى النساء، لأنهن أشفق وأحنى وأقدر على التربية من الرجال وأقوى، انتهى۔

وقال الكاساني (٢/٢٥٠) في النكاح: وإن اجتمع الأب والابن في المجنونة فالابن أولى عند أبي يوسف، وقال محمد: الأب أولى به، انتهى مختصرا. وهذا في النكاح، أما في المال فلا خلاف أنه لا ولاية للابن في المال. قال السرخسي في المبسوط (٤/٢٢٠): فلا يثبت للابن الولاية في المال، انتهى. وقال الفخر الزيلعي في التبيين (٢/١٢٧): وليس للابن الولاية في المال، انتهى. وقال ابن عابدين في رد المحتار (٣/٧٦) تحت قول الحصكفي (الوالي في النكاح) لا المال (العصبة بنفسه): قوله (لا المال) فإن الولي فيه الأب ووصيه والجد ووصيه والقاضي ونائبه فقط، ح، انتهى. وهذا الترتيب ذكره الكاساني في البدائع (٥/١٥٥) والحصكفي في الدر المختار (٦/١٧٤)۔

وقال السرخسي في المبسوط (٢٥/٢٣): ثم صحة الإذن له في وليه، ووليه أبوه، ثم وصي الأب، ثم الجد أب الأب، ثم وصيه، ثم القاضي أو وصي القاضي، فأما الأم أو وصي الأم فلا يصح الإذن منهم له في التجارة، لأنه غير ولي له في التصرفات مطلقا، بل هو كالأجنبي إلا فيما يرجع إلى حفظه، ولهذا لا يملك بيع عقاره، والإذن في التجارة ليس من الحفظ، فلهذا لا يملكه، انتهى۔

وفي الهندية (٥/١١٠): ووليه أبوه، ثم وصي الأب، ثم الجد أبو الأب، ثم وصيه، ثم الولي أو القاضي، أو وصي القاضي، فأما الأم أو وصي الأم فلا يصح منهما الإذن له في التجارة، كذا في الكافي. ولا يجوز إذن العم والأخ ووالي الشرط والوالي الذي لم يول القضاء، كذا في المغني، ولا يجوز إذن أخته وعمته وخالته، هكذا في خزانة المفتين، انتهى۔

وقال المفتي كفاية الله الدهلوي في كفاية المفتي (٧/١٦٦): نابالغہ کے مال کی ولایت چچا کو حاصل نہیں ہے، پس اگر خاندان کے بڑے اور معتبر لوگ چچا پر اعتماد رکھتے ہوں تو اسے امین بنا دیں، اور نہیں تو نابالغہ کا مال کسی دوسرے امین کی تحویل میں دے دیں۔

وقال المفتي رشيد أحمد اللديانوي في أحسن الفتاوى (٥/٩٤): ولی فی المال صرف باپ، پھر اس کا وصی ، پھر دادا، پھر اس کا وصی ، پھر قاضی ہے۔ قاضی کے نہ ہونے کی صورت میں شہر کے معتبر لوگ جسے متولی بنادیں وہی ولی کے قائم مقام ہوگا۔واستأنس لذلك بما في رد المحتار (٢/١٤٤) عن معراج الدراية للكاكي عن المبسوط: فلو الولاة كفارا يجوز للمسلمين إقامة الجمعة ويصير القاضي قاضيا بتراضي المسلمين، انتهى۔

Allah knows best

Yusuf Shabbir

17 Jumādā al-Ūlā 1442 / 2 January 2021

Approved by: Mufti Shabbir Ahmed and Mufti Muhammad Tahir