Differences between doctrine of Aul and

Radd
Introduction
The Muslim law of inheritance has got a dual basis. The whole body of rules relating to inheritance is
based on a) Quran and the traditions of Prophet and, on b) such pre-Islamic customs which were
approved by the Prophet. The Principles of Intestate Succession comes into place in case a person dies
without leaving his will for the distribution of the property owned by him at the time of his death. The
heirs according to the Muhammadan Law are divided into three classes. The first class is called the Zav-
il-Furuz or the Sharers, the second class is called the Asabah or residuaries or agnates and the third class
is called the Zav-il-Arham or the Distant Kindred.

Rules for determining the shares of the heirs

The Rules which helps in determining the share of the Quranic Heirs or the Sharers under the
Muslim Law of inheritance are as follows:

1. The process of determining the shares of the Heirs starts from determining the
Heritable Property and it is the Residue which remains after payment of funeral
expenses, debts and the legacy.
2. The next step involves ascertaining the surviving relatives of the deceased person. If the
relative fall under the category of the Sharers then they are entitled to the Share of
Inheritance and they cannot be totally or partially excluded from inheriting the
property. Also, the person who is related to the deceased through some other person
will not be entitled to inherit the property of the deceased until the other person
through whom the person is related is alive. Thus, within the limits of each class of heirs,
the nearer excludes the remoter.
3. After ascertaining the heirs, the respective shares to which the sharers are entitled to
are assigned to them. In case, it is found that the total sum of the respective shares
exceeds the unity, then the share of each share is reduced proportionately by the
process called Increase or ‘Aul’.
4. In case, the residue is left after assigning the respective shares of the Sharers, then it
devolves to the legal heirs falling under the category of residuaries. If there is no heir of
the deceased which fallsunder the category of residuary then the residuary property
reverts back to the Sharers and is distributed amongst the sharers in the proportionate
 shares. This process is called as Return or ‘Radd’.

Doctrine of ‘Radd’
If Residue is left after distributing the property of the deceased amongst the Sharers, but there
is no heir of the deceased falling under the category of Residuary, the residue of the property
reverts back to the Sharers in the proportion of their shares. The Right of the Sharers of revert
back of the Residue property to the Sharers in absence of the residuary heirs is called as the
Return or Doctrine of ‘Radd’.

The Doctrine of Return

According to this Doctrine under the Muslim Law, the residue property returns to the Sharers
and not the Distant Kindred in absence of any heir under the residuary category. If there is
more than one Sharer then the property should be returned in the proportionate shares and if
there is one sharer then the whole of the residue property should be transferred back to the
sole sharer. The residue cannot be transferred to the Distant Kindred because according to the
rules, the distant kindred do not get anything so long as there is a Sharer or Residuary alive.
Exception
The exception to this doctrine is that neither the husband nor the wife is entitled to the return
so long as there is another sharer or distant kindred alive.

However, according to the early orthodox law, this return of residue property was not allowed
in the case of a husband or a wife but the later lawyers have allowed the return to a husband or
wife when there are no other heirs and this claim has been recognized in India in M. A.
Chowdry v. S. Banoo, and Bafatun v. B. Khanum.

If, for example, a male dies leaving his mother whose share is 1/6 and a daughter whose share
is 1/2 but no widow. And, if there were two brothers, one of them died leaving two widows.
Then the second brother also died leaving behind a widow. It was decided that she would get
1/4 shares as a sharer and remaining 3/4 by the doctrine of Radd.

Illustration
This Doctrine of ‘Return’ or ‘Radd’ can be explained with the help of an illustration where a
person dies leaving behind his property. Then the property left after paying for her funeral
expenses, debts and legacies is distributed among the Sharers. The Mother and the Daughter of
the deceased are alive and fall under the category of Sharer. Then, the mother will be entitled
to 1/6th of the property and daughter will be entitled to 1/2 of the property.

The total sum of the properties of Mother and Daughter will be, 1/6 + 1/2 = 2/3. 2/3 is less than
the unity and the 1/3 of the property will still remain after distributing the property amongst
the Sharers. Therefore, in this case, the doctrine of ‘Return’ or ‘Radd’ will apply.

The first step would be to reduce the fractions of the Sharers to a common denominator. Thus,
1/6 + 1/2 = 2/3 = 1/6 + 3/6 (The fractions are reduced in such form where 6 is the common
denominator).

The second step would be to decrease the denominator to make it equal to the sum of
numerators and allow the individual numerators to remain the same as they were. Thus, 1/6 +
3/6 will become 1/4 + 3/4 (in this case, the denominator is made equal to 4 because the sum of
both the numerators is 4).

Hence, with the help of this doctrine, the Shares of the Sharers are increased proportionately in
such a manner that the um of the Shares of the property of Sharers become equal to unity.

Doctrine of ‘Aul’
In case, the total sum of the specific shares allotted to various shares exceeds the unity then the
doctrine of increase (Aul) comes into the application and the specific share of each sharer is
reduced in a proportionate manner. The proportionate share reduce in the following manner.

1. By reducing the shares to a common denominator.

2. By increasing the denominator to make it equal to the sum of the numerators allowing
the numerators to stand as they are.

Illustration
This Doctrine of ‘Aul’ can be explained with the help of an illustration where a woman dies
leaving behind her property. Then the property left after paying for her funeral expenses, debts
and legacies are distributed among the Sharers. The husband of the deceased women and her
two full sisters are alive and fall under the category of Sharer. Then, Husband will be entitled to
1/2 of the property of the deceased and the two full sisters will be entitled to 2/3rd of the
property.
Total of 1/2 and 2/3 will be 7/6 which exceeds the unity and hence, in this case, the Doctrine of
Increase or ‘Aul’ will come into application.

The first step would be to reduce the fractions of the Sharers to a common denominator. Thus,
1/2 + 2/3 = 7/6 = 3/6 + 4/6 (The fractions are reduced in such a form where 6 is the common
denominator).

The second step would be to increase the denominator to make it equal to the sum of
numerators and allow the individual numerators to remain the same as they were. Thus, 3/6 +
4/6 will become 3/7 + 4/7 (in this case, the denominator is made equal to 7 because the sum of
both the numerators is 7).

Hence, with the help of this doctrine, the total sum of the shares of the property of Sharers are
reduced in a proportionate manner and become equal to unity.

Differences and Conclusion Doctrine of Radd and

Aul
When the sum of fractions of properties to Sharers is equal to unity, there is no problem. But if
it is more· or less than unity, the shares of respective heirs are reduced or increased
respectively. The process whereby the shares are reduced is called the Doctrine of Increase or
Doctrine of ‘AUL’; and the process whereby the shares are increased is called the Doctrine of
Return or Doctrine of ‘Radd’.

The Steps involved in the Doctrine of Increase as well as in Doctrine of Return are almost similar
to each other. The first step involves the reduction of the fractions of the Sharers to a common
denominator. Subsequently, the second step involves increasing/decreasing the denominator
to make it equal to the sum of numerators, and allow the individual numerators to remain the
same as they were.

The shares obtained will be the reduced shares in case the initial sum of their property exceeds
unity. Similarly, the shares obtained in case the initial sumo of their property remains less than
the unity will be the addition proportionate share of the property they will get. Therefore, the
differences formulated by the author between the Doctrine of Return and the Doctrine of
Increase are as follows:

1. In ‘Increase’, the total of the shares adds up to more than unity; whereas in ‘return’ the
total falls short of unity.
2. In ‘Increase’, the shares undergo rateable reduction. In ‘Return’, the shares undergo a
rateable increase.
3. In ‘Increase’, the share of the husband or wife suffers a proportionate reduction along
with other sharers. In ‘Return’, the husband or wife is not entitled to the ‘Return’ so
long as there is any other heir, whether sharer or distant kindred.

However, some difference of opinion exists between Shia and Sunni Muslims with
regard to the Doctrine of Increase or ‘Aul’. According to Sunni law, the doctrine implies a
proportionate reduction of all the shares. On the other hand, the law governing the Shia
Muslims provide that the reduction of the shares of the daughter or the daughter and
full or consanguine sister or sisters only. Other heirs do not suffer.