Summary: (a) Inheritance-------Co-sharer, rights of---Principle---Co-sharership is result of devolution of inheritance, cosharer becomes co-sharer the moment inheritance opens---Even mutation of entries or sharein moveable property is also not necessary.2004 SCMR 392 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------S. 383---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Successioncertificate, revision of---Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts---Compensation---Widow contracting second marriage---Husband of widow was policeconstable who died in bomb blast and Government announced compensation package andother facilities to bereaved family---Deceased was issueless, therefore, succession certificatewas issued in favour of widow and parents of the deceased---Parents of deceased assailedsuccession certificate in favour of widow on the plea that she had contracted second marriageand got revised succession certificate issued in their favour---Civil suit filed by parents ofwidow was decreed in their favour---Validity---Widow could not be deprived of her share inview of first succession certificate issued by Trial Court as on such date she was widow ofthe deceased; her second marriage could not operate retrospectively but Trial Court withoutconsidering such aspect of matter passed decree in favor of parents of deceased which couldnot be sustained except share of salary she received during subsistence of second marriage---Deceased was issueless and parents of deceased who were living with deceased and weredependents were included in the family---Revised succession certificate was issued by TrialCourt with consent of both the parties and thereafter, separate certificate was issuedrespectively---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside judgment passed byTrial court but maintained order regarding salary of deceased received by widow to extent ofher share during subsistence of second marriage---Appeal was allowed accordingly.PLD 1991 SC 731; PLD 2010 Kar. 153; PLD 2019 Sindh 1 and PLD 2013 Pesh. 1 ref.

Summary: Background:Fawad Qayum filed a suit against Mst. Laila Qayum, alleging that Laila was adopted by his parents and concealed from her the fact of her adoption.Fawad sought declarations that Laila was not the real daughter of his parents and had no right to their legacy.The suit also sought cancellation of documents showing Laila as the daughter of Fawad's parents.---Issues:Whether Fawad had the legal standing to seek the declarations and cancellation of documents.Whether the suit was maintainable under the Specific Relief Act and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.Whether a DNA test should be allowed to determine Laila's paternity.Whether the court had the authority to dismiss the suit and award costs.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that Fawad lacked the legal standing to seek the declarations and cancellation of documents as it did not involve his own legal character or property rights.The suit was found to be not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act and Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.The court refused to allow a DNA test, citing concerns about privacy and the inability to confirm or negate paternity conclusively due to the passage of time.Utilizing its ancillary powers under Article 187 of the Constitution, the court dismissed the suit and awarded costs to the petitioner, considering it frivolous and potentially depriving Laila of her inheritance.---Citations/Precedents:Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Ghulam Dastagir Khan (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 327)Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203)Muhammad Shahid Sahil v. State (PLD 2015 FSC 215)B. P. Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2851)Rehmatullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2003 SCMR 50)Daw Pone v. Ma Hnin May (AIR 1941 Rangoon 220)Abdul Karim v. Sarraya Begum (AIR 1945 Lahore 266)---Quote:The plaintiff seeks a negative declaration and one which has nothing to do with his own legal character. To challenge another's adoption or legitimacy of birth does not assert the plaintiff's own legal character. The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.

Summary: Appeal Allowed---The appellant cited relevant sections of the Succession Act, 1925, and the Sindh Chief Court Rules to emphasize that investigative proceedings against a financial institution were not contemplated in succession proceedings. The appellant also pointed out that earlier orders had already sought the balance amount of the deceased's accounts with the appellant, and such information had been provided to the Court. On the other hand, Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan, representing the respondents, contended that since the deceased's accounts had been under restraint before his demise, any activity in those accounts could prejudice the interests of the legal heirs. He cited a circular to argue that legal heirs were entitled to obtain statements of account in the same manner as the deceased account holder. The respondents also emphasized that the Act was silent on seeking the kind of information requested by the impugned order. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the order seeking statements of account from the financial institution was unmerited and not just and proper. The Court emphasized that succession proceedings were not adversarial in nature and that the legal heirs could seek appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum if they had concerns about the deceased's accounts. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 373 & 372---Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1989, R.4---Government ofBalochistan Notification No. FD(R-II)VII-2/98/1719-1819 dated 25.07.1998----Familypension---Pension dues of deceased public servant---Succession Certificate---Eligibility ofunmarried daughter above the age of twenty-one---Petitioner impugned order of Civil Courtwhereby claim of entitlment of petitioner to her deceased father's pension was denied, onground that she being above the age of twenty-one was not entitled to the same---Validity---In view of Government of Balochistan Notification No.FD(R-II)VII-2/98/1719-1819 dated25.07.1998, irreseptive of age, unmarried female child of deceased was entitled to drawfamily pension of late father till her marriage---High Court observed that no where inBalochistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1989 it had been mentioned that after havingattained age of twenty-one, unmarried daughter of deceased government servant would bedisentitled from family pension---Impugned order was set aside---Revision was allowed,accordingly.

Summary: Background:Fazeelat Agha, as the successor-in-interest of the heirs of Nawab Faiz Ali Khan of Karnal, East Punjab, filed a civil miscellaneous application and a review petition against an order dated May 6, 1999, passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No. 1208-L/98. The dispute revolves around the ownership and inheritance rights to agricultural land and urban immovable property owned by Nawab Faiz Ali Khan.---Issues:Whether Nawab Faiz Ali Khan's heirs, particularly Nawabzada Fayyaz Ali Khan and his brothers, are entitled to inheritance rights over agricultural land.Whether the Rehabilitation Authorities properly considered and adjudicated upon the claims of inheritance presented by Nawab Faiz Ali Khan's heirs.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court examined the historical context and legal proceedings concerning the inheritance claims of Nawab Faiz Ali Khan's heirs. Despite numerous attempts by the heirs to assert their rights through various legal avenues, including writ petitions and civil petitions, they faced challenges from the Rehabilitation Authorities, who initially refused to verify their claims based on technical grounds. The Court emphasized the need for Rehabilitation Authorities to thoroughly examine and adjudicate upon inheritance claims, as highlighted in its previous judgments. It noted that while the issue regarding urban property had been resolved, the status of agricultural land remained undetermined. Consequently, the Court directed the Rehabilitation Authorities to reevaluate the heirs' claims in light of the Supreme Court's previous observations and ensure a fair assessment of their entitlement to inheritance.---Citations/Precedents:Principles of inheritance law and administrative law concerning the jurisdiction and duties of Rehabilitation Authorities.

Summary: The judgment pertains to a suit for declaration filed by respondents against the petitioners and others. The suit claimed that the inheritance mutations of certain lands were obtained fraudulently, excluding the rightful heirs. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court modified the decree, stating that plaintiffs and defendants No.13 and 14 were entitled to inheritance and the entries in the revenue record.The petitioners challenge the judgments, arguing that the parties were governed by customary law, not Sharia. They assert that crucial facts, including a Revenue Officer's decision in 1933, were overlooked. The petitioners claim that the suit is time-barred and dispute the application of Section 2(A) of the Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act. They also contend that the findings on various issues are not sustainable under the law.The court reviews the evidence and concludes that the family was governed by Islamic law. It emphasizes that the daughters and widow were entitled to inherit the property and dismisses arguments related to limitation. The court also rejects the relevance of cited case law to the present circumstances.Furthermore, the court modifies the appellate court's findings, stating that all daughters and the widow or their legal heirs are entitled to inherit the property. The court dismissed the application for impleadment during the revision, citing the doctrine of lis pendens.

Summary: (a) Gift-------Mutation---Inheritance---Limitation---Claimant's predecessor-in- interest not challengingsuch mutation during his lifetime---Effect---Plea of plaintiffs was that impugned mutation wasillegal and they were entitled for their shares in the inheritance---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs had not challenged the impugned mutation in hislifetime---If a heir who was directly affected by a wrong mutation of inheritance had notchallenged the same till his death, his legal heirs had no locus standi to dispute such mutation---Findings recorded by the Courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below could not sustain which were setaside---Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed---Revision was allowed in accordingly.2002 SCMR 1330, 2004 SCMR 299 and Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst.Makhan Jan and another 2013 SCMR 299 ref.(b) Evidence-------Pleadings---Evidence could not be led or looked into in support of a plea which had not beentaken in the pleadings.Farooq Ahmed v. Chairman Federal Public Service Commission Islamabad, 1998 SCMR336 rel.

Summary: (a) Islamic law-------Inheritance---Gift (Hiba-bil-Iwaz)---Disinheritance of legal heir due to disobedience---Scope---Plaintiff was deprived of his legal share from the inheritance due to disobedience and giftmutation was made in favour of defendants---Suit filed by the plaintiff against the said mutationof gift was decreed concurrently---Validity---Plaintiff was deprived from the inheritance of hisfather due to disobedience and gift mutation was attested in favour of defendants---Ground ofdisobedience to hold the impugned gift as valid had no sanctity nor on this sole object lawfulheirs could be deprived from inheritance---Muslim owner could validly transfer his property onlythrough the mode recognized by Islam and not otherwise---Muslim could gift away his propertyto anyone but in case transfer was made with intent to deprive the heirs of their rights ofinheritance on the ground not recognized by law then same would be void---Impugned gift wasmade by the father in his life time in favour of defendants i.e. daughters to deprive the son frominheritance on negative reason which was forbidden under the law---Object of donor, in thepresent case, was to deprive the plaintiff of his legal share in his property---Findings recorded bythe Courts below with regard to plea of 'Aaq' (exclusion from inhertance) taken by thedefendants were based on proper declaration that impugned mutation was invalid on that ground---Impugned gift was Hibba-bil-Awez for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and plaintiff would beliable to return the said amount to the defendants---No other illegality or irregularity had beenpointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Court below---Revision wasdismissed in circumstances.1994 MLD 283; 2011 CLC 275; 2002 YLR 1320; 2011 YLR 697 and PLD 2013 Lah.264 ref.Mst. Kulsoom Bibi and others v. Muhammad Arif and others, 2005 SCMR 135; Mst.Nusrat Zohra v. Mst Azhra Bibi PLD 2006 SC 15; Muhammad Ismail through Legal Heirs andothers v. Muhammad Ismail through Legal Heirs and others 2002 SCMR 1938; MuhammadYaqoob v. Feroze Khan and others 2003 SCMR 41 and Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufailand another 2018 SCMR 139 rel.(b) Islamic law------Gift---Ingredients---Gift was transfer of property or right by one person to another---Essentialsof gift were declaration by the donor, acceptance of gift by the donee and delivery of possessionof subject matter of gift to donee.

Summary: The case revolves around the inheritance of the estate of a deceased individual named Javed, who left behind two widows. Mst. Mehti had agreed to sell her land to Mst. Sakina Bibi through an agreement dated 12.09.1971, but she did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement. Consequently, a suit for specific performance was filed, and a decree was issued on 16.10.2014. Respondent No. 3 attempted to challenge this judgment and decree by filing an application under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), claiming to be the legal representative of Mst. Mehti, the deceased. However, his claims of being the legal representative were questionable, as he had changed his status multiple times.Respondent No. 3 had previously asserted his status as the heir of Mst. Mehti based on various documents, but these claims were rejected due to lack of evidence. Moreover, an FIR was filed against him for allegedly fabricating a will, which led to his imprisonment until he was granted bail by the Court.In an attempt to thwart the agreement of sale in favor of Mst. Sakina, respondent No. 3 filed several applications, all of which were either rejected on merits or withdrawn, including a writ petition in 2012.At the time of this order, another suit titled "Jan Muhammad v. Province of Punjab and others" was pending before the Civil Judge in Okara, initiated in 2011. In the present case, respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 12(2) C.P.C., leading to a detailed reply by the petitioners' predecessor. The trial Court framed issues in response to this application. The petitioners then challenged this order before the District Judge, which was dismissed on 23.04.2016, leading to the filing of this writ petition.The arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel revolved around the alleged misuse of section 12(2) C.P.C., asserting that this provision was intended to provide relief in cases of fraud and misrepresentation, which was not applicable in this situation. They argued that respondent No. 3 had repeatedly changed his stance and had a history of attempting to claim the estate unlawfully. They also claimed that the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. was incompetent, as a suit for declaration was already pending. The petitioners requested the setting aside of the impugned orders and the direction to decide the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. after hearing arguments.On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No. 3 defended the impugned orders and argued that anyone whose rights were adversely affected by an order, judgment, or decree had the right to challenge it through an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. They contended that the existence of a statutory right of appeal did not preclude other remedies under the law.After hearing arguments and examining the record, the Court found that respondent No. 3's application under section 12(2) C.P.C. was not competent and maintainable. Moreover, they noted that respondent No. 3 had misused the legal process by concealing facts and causing delays in the proceedings. Therefore, the Court allowed the constitutional petition, set aside the impugned orders, and dismissed the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. filed by respondent No. 3, ordering him to bear the costs throughout the legal proceedings. The Court cited previous case law in support of its decision.

Summary: Inheritance---"Full sister" of the propositus---Doctrine of "Radd" or "Rule of exclusion"--Applicability---Propositus was survived by his widow, full sister and sons of predeceased brother--Revenue authorities distributed legacy of propositus by giving 1/4th share to widow, 2/4th share to full sister and 1/4th share to nephews (sons of predeceased brother)---Plea of full sister that being full sister in default of full brother and the others, she being nearer as a residuary was entitled to inherit 3/4th share while excluding the remote sons of predeceased brother under the doctrine of "Radd" or "rule of exclusion; held, that the propositus died without leaving any child, child of a son, father, grandfather, brother or consanguine brother, hence the full sister had to inherit being a sharer---Although there might be an eventuality when status of a sister being sharer may also be converted into residuary, but condition precedent for such capacity would be either when she had a brother or in his default there be a daughter or daughters, or son's daughter or daughters, or even if there was one daughter and a son's daughter or daughters---In the present case, no such situation arose and the full sister as well as sons of predeceased brother were rightly awarded shares as per dictates of Holy Quran and Sunnah hence the full sister was not entitled to take the residue---Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances. ---- (a) Muhammadan Law ----Inheritance---Status of full sister---Doctrine of exclusion and rule of "Radd"---Scope---Full sister's entitlement to inheritance examined---Deceased, an adherent of Hanfi sect, died issueless, survived by widow, full sister, and sons of predeceased brother---Revenue Hierarchy apportioned legacy: 1/4th share to widow, 2/4th share to full sister, and 1/4th share to nephews (sons of predeceased brother)---Petitioner (full sister) challenged apportionment contending she was entitled to 3/4th share, excluding nephews under doctrine of "Radd"---Held, under Para 65 of Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mulla, full sister may inherit as a sharer where there is no child, child's child, father, grandfather, full brother, or consanguine brother of deceased---Conversion of sister's share into residuary requires existence of daughter(s) or son's daughter(s), which was absent in instant case---In given circumstances, petitioner was rightly treated as sharer, not residuary---No exclusion of sons of predeceased brother warranted---Revenue Forum and Courts below rightly apportioned shares in accordance with dictates of Holy Quran, Sunnah, and Muhammadan Law---No illegality found warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. Cited Case: • Saadullah and others v. Mst. Gulbanda and others (2014 SCMR 1205)