Summary: Mst. Amna had filed a suit in 1989 seeking a declaration of her inheritance rights to certain property, claiming a 1/5th share. The defendants, who were her brothers, contested the suit, arguing that their father had died in 1940 and that customary law of inheritance applied, which excluded their sister from inheriting the property. They claimed that any partition claims were related to their own property, not Mst. Amna's. The critical issue in the case revolved around whether the property had been inherited under customary law or Muslim Family Law of Inheritance. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, emphasizing that the plaintiff had not proven her entitlement under Muslim Family Law and had failed to produce relevant documents. The revision petition argued that the Addl. District Judge had made a material error in setting aside the trial court's judgment, and the judgment was not based on solid evidence or logical reasoning. The High Court agreed with the revision petitioner's argument, finding that the plaintiff had not adequately proved her entitlement, and the judgment of the trial court should stand. In conclusion, this legal document describes a revision petition against a property inheritance dispute case, focusing on the conflicting claims of inheritance based on customary law and Muslim Family Law. The High Court accepted the revision petition, ultimately dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- Succession Act----Ss. 284, 278 & 372---Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.413---Grant of Letter of Administration in respect of immovable property of deceased---Caveats against grant of Letter of Administration---Alleged oral gift---Succession petition was supported with "no objection" affidavits of three legal heirs, however, one remaining legal heir filed caveat under S.284 of the Succession Act, 1925 contending that deceased had orally gifted suit property solely to him---High Court converted petition into a suit as per R.413 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) and held that burden of proving the said oral gift was on the caveator, however, he failed to appear as a witness to prove his claim of oral gift of the property in dispute and also failed to cast doubt on evidence led by the petitioner and her witnesses in support of her claim of seeking Letter of Administration of the property of the deceased---Caveator had not disputed relationship of the petitioner and other legal heirs with the deceased and had failed to prove the alleged gift and did not produce any witnesses to confirm the contents of declaration of the said oral gift---Caveat filed by the caveator/objector was dismissed and High Court directed that Letter of Administration be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules---Petition was allowed, accordingly.

Summary: Background:The petitioners challenged the mutation of inheritance dated July 9, 1927, of Kala Khan, which related to the inheritance rights of Mst. Karam Jan. The trial court originally decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, affirming their right to claim their share of the inheritance. This judgment was upheld on appeal. However, the High Court reversed these decisions, dismissing the suit on the basis of limitation, arguing that the challenge to the mutation was made too late.---Issues:Whether the petitioners have a bona fide right to claim their share of the inheritance of Mst. Karam Jan.Whether the suit is barred by limitation despite the petitioners' claims that they are co-sharers in the property.The applicability of the legal precedent regarding limitation and co-sharers in the context of inheritance claims.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision of the High Court. The court reasoned that:The mutation of inheritance dated 1927 was never challenged by Mst. Karam Jan, who was aware of the mutation and lived until 1975 without contesting it.There was no explanation provided in the evidence or plaint as to why Mst. Karam Jan did not challenge the mutation during her lifetime.The petitioners, being successors of Mst. Karam Jan, also did not present a valid reason for their delayed challenge of the mutation.The precedent cases cited by the petitioners? counsel were not applicable as they did not address the specific issue of locus standi in the context of an unchallenged mutation during the lifetime of the person from whom the petitioners derived their claim.Based on these findings, the court concluded that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the mutation independently as the original party, Mst. Karam Jan, had accepted the mutation by her inaction.----Citations/Precedents:Allah Wasaya v. Rahim Bakhsh (1991 SCMR 1369) and Jumma Khan v. Mst. Zenab Bibi (PLD 2002 SC 823): Discussed but distinguished as they did not deal with the specific issues of locus standi and limitation related to unchallenged mutations.Abdul Haq v. Mst. Surraya Begum (2002 SCMR 1330): Supported the position that heirs cannot challenge a mutation that was not contested by their predecessor during their lifetime.

Summary: a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)---Family matter----S.4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Succession---Son of predeceased sister of deceased---Inheritance, right of---Scope---Categories of legal heirs---Plaint, rejection of---Provisions of S. 4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 were applicable to a specific category of class of legal heirs i. e. sons and daughters of deceased which could not be applied to the son of predeceased sister of deceased---Sons and daughters of predeceased sister would come in the third category of legal heirs i.e. distant kindred---Shares out of assets at first were to be consumed by the sharers and left over to be consumed by the residuaries and if there were no residuaries then same had to revert back to the sharers---If sharers and residuaries were available then distant kindred were not entitled to share under Islamic Law---Both the sharers and residuaries were available in the present case and there was no question of inheritance by distant kindred---Plaintiff being in the third category of legal heirs was not entitled to inherit share from the assets left by the deceased in presence of sharers and residuaries---Plaint could not be rejected in piecemeal---Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Islamic law--- ----Inheritance---Categories of legal heirs---Categories of legal heirs were sharer, residuaries and distant kindred.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure – Civil Revision: ----Civil Revision No. 43/2012, Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court – Partition of Property Civil petition arising from a dismissal of Civil Revision No. 43/2012, whereby the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court directed the Collector District Ghanche to partition the property of the deceased, Mr. Muhammad Ali, among his heirs afresh. The petitioners, challenging the decision, sought a revision of the order, asserting that the property was gifted to them by their mother and sisters, with proper attestation of the mutation. The Chief Court’s judgment was upheld. (b) Property Law – Gift and Evidence: ----Validity of Gift Deed – Burden of Proof Petitioners claimed ownership of disputed land based on a gift from their mother and sisters. The respondents, heirs of Mr. Muhammad Ali, contested the claim, arguing that no formal gift deed was provided. The petitioners failed to substantiate the gift deed claim with adequate evidence. The legal requirement of a formal gift deed was emphasized, and oral evidence was insufficient to validate the petitioners' claim. (c) Inheritance Law – Shari Share: ----Islamic Law of Inheritance – Entitlement of Heirs The respondents, as legal heirs of Mr. Muhammad Ali, were entitled to their Shari share of the disputed property. The Court reaffirmed their right to inherit under Islamic law, despite the petitioners' claim of gift ownership. (d) Civil Procedure Code – Appeal and Revision: ----Maintainability of Appeal – Appellate Court’s Findings The appeal, challenging the findings of the learned District Judge and the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, was dismissed. The petitioners failed to show any error in the decisions of the courts below. The judgments in favor of the respondents were maintained. ----Disposition of the Case: The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the impugned judgments of the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court and District Judge Ghanche, while setting aside the judgment of the Civil Judge Khaplu.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S. 52---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Mutation of inheritance---Scope---Suit for declaration---Maintainability---Inheritance---Limitation---Contention of plaintiffs was that they had been deprived from inheritance bycreating trust---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Suit property was mutated inthe names of three sons excluding two daughters---Revenue Officer only mentioned three sonsbut did not mention daughters of the deceased in the inheritance mutation---Right of successionwould arise in favour of successors from the date of death of a person without any interruptionand property would automatically vest in the persons having status of legal heirs---Time wouldnot affect a right of inheritance accrued in favour of legal heir---Legal heirs would become coowners and co-sharers of property left by the deceased irrespective of the fact that who was inpossession---Possession of one co-sharer was deemed to be possession of all co-sharers---Possession would neither oust the legal heirs from their entitlement nor it would make a personin possession the exclusive owner of such property---Entry in the mutation was not a document of title but was a presumptive piece of evidence for establishment of the same---Presumption oftruth would attach to the entries in the revenue record but such presumption was rebutable---Entry recorded in the revenue record could be challenged on having knowledge of the same or ifa person did not consider himself to be aggrieved of such entry but having an interest in it couldapproach a court when he became aggrieved of such entry or someone had denied his right---Date of recording entry would not be the starting point for running of the time for filing a suit fordeclaration instead when grievance arose would be the relevant time---Option would lie with theperson for filing a suit for declaration when his right was denied and every denial of right wouldfurnish a fresh cause of action---Such right was to be exercised within a period of six years onaccrual of cause of action---Time in a suit for declaration should be counted from when the rightto sue accrued and same was refused by the other party and date of entry in the mutation wouldbe immaterial---Span of time would neither extinguish right of inheritance nor adverse to thetitle of legal heir---Possession of one legal heir was deemed to be possession of all the legalheirs---Right of inheritance was established by the plaintiffs and shares of all the legal heirs wereto be determined and satisfied---Claim of plaintiffs was based on the right of inheritance,therefore neither time would affect the same nor there would be any question of limitation---Suitof plaintiffs was maintainable---Trial Court decided the case on mere presumptions---Plaintiffscould not be deprived of their right due to lapse of time---High Court framed the issues andremanded the case to the Trial Court with the direction to implead the Provincial Governmentand then decide the same---Appeal was accepted accordingly.Anwar Muhammad v. Sharif Din PLD 1983 SC 62 and Ghulam Ali v. Mst. GhulamSarwar PLD 1990 SC 1 rel.(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)------Art. 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Periodfor filing suit for declaration was six years and time was to be counted when right to suit arose.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.117---Suit for declaration---Concurrent findingsof courts below---Right of inheritance in legacy of deceased father---Partition of the suit propertyon the basis of execution of Will---Registered Will of deceased---Burden of proof---Defendantclaimed that plaintiff had received his share in life time of deceased owner of the property onbasis of partition through execution of Will of deceased father---Burden rested with thedefendant---Marginal witnesses of the Will were not produced---No witness was produced inwhose presence the process of partition was held---Sole witness of the occasion failed to confirmthe deed---Signatures of the executants on the Will were not got verified---Effect---In absence ofspecific evidence, and material, the purported will was not proved to the state of satisfaction---Fact of the partition and delivery of the possession of the respective shares was also notestablished---Judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit was upheld. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(12)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),Art.117---Mesne profit---Object---Scope---Onus of proof---Criteria---Both the parties being thesuccessors of deceased entitled to inherit the legacy left by him---Plaintiffs claimed mesne profit---Onus was on the plaintiff to establish the fact that the property was in wrongful possession ofthe defendants which made him entitled for mesne profit---Only object of awarding of mesneprofit was to compensate a person entitled to be in possession of a property, but being kept out ofpossession, thereby deprived from the profits arrived out of such property---Person who was notin wrongful possession of such property and was in possession of property as a co-sharer beforepartition of the same, could not be made accountable for the profits earned during the period---While deciding the question thereby assessing mesne profit the person claiming was entitled onlyto the extent whatever the person in wrongful possession had collected from the property or theamount which without wilful default he had received---Some specific evidence was requiredinitially to establish that the person was in wrongful possession and secondly he had received theprofits arriving therefrom---Plaintiff was not entitled for mesne profit in circumstances.(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(12)---Possession of property by successor---Mesne profit---Claim of mesne profit by co-sharer of property---Trial Court had refused to grantthe relief of mesne profit to plaintiff (co-sharer)---Appellate Court reversed the findings of TrialCourt and granted mesne profit to the plaintiff---Plaintiff alleged wrongful possession ofdefendant---Validity---Both the parties being the successors of deceased were entitled to inherentthe legacy left by their father---Utilization of left over property in possession of some of the legalheirs of the deceased would not amount to be wrongful possession---Possession of co-sharer of ajoint property in absence of proof of ouster or exclusion of other co-sharer could not be termedas wrongful possession---Person who was not in wrongful possession could not be accountablefor the profits before partition of the property in question---Plaintiff could not raise a claim formesne profit---Judgment of the Appellate Court granting mesne profit to plaintiff was set aside.

Summary: PLJ 2013 AJK 164 Present Ghulam Mustafa Mughal CJ MUHAMMAD RIAZ 14 others - - Appellants versus KALA KHAN 18 others - - Respondents Appeal No 105 of 2012 decided on 2442013 Principle of Estoppel - - - - - - Abandoned right - - Principle of estoppel was pleaded against lady who allegedly abandoned right by making a statement before Tehsildar at time of attestation of mutation - - No abundance estoppel can be pleaded against statute [P 170] A Muhammadan Law - - - - - - Right of inheritance - - Legal heirs - - Limitation - - Family was governed by special custom on basis of which ladies were not entitled to inheritance - - Legal heirs of persons who were entitled to inherit under law cannot be deprived from their right of inheritance mere on speculation - - Suit was barred by limitation had no substance because her legal heirs would be deemed in constructive possession of the suit land and they cannot be non - suited on basis of limitation and estoppel [P 171] B C Mr Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal Advocate for Appellants Ch Muhammad Ismail Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal dismissed

Summary: Abdullah initially filed a suit seeking to declare Mst. Bibi as a limited owner, but it was dismissed due to non-prosecution. Later, another suit was filed on the ground of Mst. Bibi's remarriage, but it was also dismissed. The subsequent appeal against the dismissal of the second suit was unsuccessful. After changes to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act in 1962, the legal heirs of Abdullah filed a suit claiming inheritance rights, contending that they were entitled to the land and not bound by previous judgments. The court cited section 2-A of the Act, stating that any male heir acquiring agricultural land under custom from a Muslim before the Act's enforcement became an absolute owner of that land. The court further noted that the suit filed by the legal heirs was barred by limitation, having been filed long after the cause of action arose. Despite the legal heirs' attempt to base their claim on section 2 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Doubts) Ordinance, 1972, the court upheld the previous judgments and found their suit time-barred. The court also mentioned that previous suits and judgments were conclusive and could not be challenged again. Overall, the court rejected the legal heirs' claims, affirming Mst. Bibi's full ownership and dismissing the suit due to time limitations and the principle of res judicata.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 8---Suit for possession---Gift---Proof---Exclusion of other legal heirs---House in questionwas owned by father of parties and after the death of their father, plaintiff sought recovery ofpossession of the house on the basis of a registered gift deed executed in his favour---Suit wasdecreed in favour of plaintiff by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal andsuit was dismissed---Validity---No witness deposed as to why gift was made in favour ofplaintiff and donor used to live with him---No evidence was available about health of the donortill his death and types of special services rendered by the plaintiff---No reason was on record asto why other children were divested of their legitimate rights and were denied their rightfulclaim---Act of making a gift was a prerogative of an owner and it should not have been a covertexercise but an overt recital on the beat of a drum---Purported gift was brought in the notice ofheirs after death of the donor which also cast doubt on the transaction---If such was intention ofthe donor, it would have seen the light of the day during his lifetime, so that the donor himselfcould have defended and endorsed execution of gift deed---Suit was brought after the death ofthe donor and averments of plaint were sufficient to hold that gift was kept secret and after thedeath of donor, suit was filed through which not only possession was claimed but mesne profitswere claimed from the date of execution of purported gift deed, notwithstanding the fact thatdonor remained alive till year, 1983, whereas purported gift deed was got registered in year,1980---No witness had uttered a single word about execution of the document in his presence---Even testimony of commission did not establish execution of purported gift as it was not foundin evidence that donor had signed before him or he made any determination about gift---HighCourt declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court---Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.Province of the Punjab through Collector District Khushab, Jauharabad and others v. Haji Yaqoob Khan and others 2007 SCMR 554; Reham Ali and another v. Abdul and 3 others 1980CLC 1110; Saida v. Pinnu and another PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 245; Mst. Sardaran Bibi v. TajDin PLD 1993 Lah. 411; Khursheedul Islam v. Mrs. Qamar Jahan 1989 CLC 1467; AmirullahKhan and another v. Muhammad Akram 2004 YLR 709; Auqaf Department v. Javed Shuja andothers 1995 CLC 1173; Hoshiar Ali v. Ghulam Sabir 1993 CLC 2476; Mst. Allah Jawai andothers v. Maqbool Shah and others 2005 MLD 261; Barrister Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem and4 others v. Mst. Tanveer Mirza and 3 others 1996 SCMR 351 and Province of the Punjabthrough Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, P.W.D, Secretariat Old Anarkali Lahoreand 3 others v. Ch. Mehraj Din and Co. through Proprietor 2003 CLC 504 distinguished.