Summary: Background:The dispute involves property originally owned by Samad Khan, who passed away in 1960. The property was categorized as evacuee property and was allotted to Samad Khan based on his verified claim. Upon his death, a mutation was sanctioned, acknowledging his heirs. His son, Atta Muhammad, contested a will made by Samad Khan, arguing it should not take effect as he had been disowned, and therefore deprived of his inheritance rights by Samad Khan. The petitioners claimed they were the sons of Ali Muhammad, Samad Khan's predeceased son, and entitled to the property, whereas the respondents, being daughters from their mother Muhammad Bibi's previous marriage to Nazir Muhammad, were argued not to be entitled to inherit.----Issues:1.Whether the will disfavoring Atta Muhammad should be recognized and given effect.2.The entitlement of respondents to the property, considering their claim that they were daughters of Ali Muhammad.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The trial court initially dismissed the petitioners' suit, recognizing the respondents as daughters of Ali Muhammad and thus entitled to inherit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling that Atta Muhammad was the rightful heir, excluding Ali Muhammad?s heirs. This decision was based on the fact that Atta Muhammad did not consent to the will, a requirement under Muhammadan law for wills favoring one heir over others. The High Court later overturned the appellate court's ruling, reinstating the trial court?s decision after observing the mutation proceedings and evidence presented, which did not support the petitioners' claims. The High Court's decision was upheld, with the Supreme Court dismissing the petitioners' appeal, finding no legal infirmity in the previous judgments.---Principles:-Muhammadan Law on inheritance and the necessity of consent by all heirs to a will favoring one over others.Court?s interpretation of evidentiary requirements and the role of direct evidence in establishing familial relationships and inheritance rights.-Legal principles regarding the effect of non-challenged mutations on inheritance claims.

Summary: PLJ 2001 Lahore 825 Present CH LlAZ AHMAD J MUHAMMAD SARWAR and 12 others - Petitioners versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB LAHORE and 4 others - Respondents WP No 1482 of 1984 heard on 2592000 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - Art 199 - Inheritance mutation on death of one widow of original owner of land - Challenged by petitioners as well as by reversionersAppeal of reversioners accepted by Collector - Set aside by Commissioner reversed by Member Board of Revenue - Writ petition filed by petitioners failed - Inheritance mutation on death of second widow of original owner in accordance with Shariat Application Act 1948 - - ValidityExecution of will by owner - Effect o - Constitutional Petition for determination of disputed question of fact - maintainabilityS is original owner of land in question - He solemnized marriage in his life time with Mst G and Mst Z - Died issueless on 431945 - Msf G died in 1961 and land which was held by her finally reverted to respondents by order of Member Board of Revenue - Petitioners filed writ petition which was dismissed on 661974 by High Court on ground that petitioners should avail remedy available to them before Civil Court as disputed questions of fact are likely to arise for determination - Petitioners did not file any suit - Meaning thereby order passed by Member Board of Revenue against petitioners on 2471963 is final to extent of land owned by Mst G - Subsequently Mst Z died in year 1970 and land owned by her was also reverted to respondents by order of Member Board of Revenue dated 1931981 - Aforesaid fact clearly reveals that issue is same which has been finally decided earlier by Member Board of Revenue order dated 2471963 qua Mst G widow of late S - In present controversy land was owned by second widow which is in dispute - Controversy between parties is same and High Court has laid down principle that writ petition is not maintainable in earlier round of litigation in aforesaid writ petition as disputed question of fact could not be decided in Constitutional jurisdiction - Held Writ petition is not maintainable and petitioners have alternate remedy by filing Civil Suit before competent jurisdiction - Petition disposed of accordingly [Pp 827 828] A B C PLD 1959 SC 9 Ch Khurshid Ahmad Advocate for Petitioners Mr Raja Shafqat Abbasi Advocate with Izharul Hague Advocate for RespondentJudgement Result:Petition disposed of according

Summary: Plj 1996 Peshawar 14 Present Zennat Khan J Mst Slabo BIBIPetitioner versus Gul Rehman and 13 others - Respondents Civil Revision No 119 of 1991 dismissed on 29101995 Inheritance Mutation - Predecessor of parties - Inheritance of - Mutation of - Challenge to Whether predecessor of respondents had died before Isa Khan (Predecessor of parties) and respondents were entitled to 27 share Question of - In absence of any positive evidence pertaining to exact date of death of Shah Farman and presence of evidence of plaintiffs that whereabout of Shah Farman are not know for more than thirty ears therefore learned trial court as well as learned appellate court were right in their view that legally Shah Farman was civilly dead on date of nstitution of present suit - Held Inheritance mutation to extent f Shah Farman is held to be incorrect void and hence ineffective on right of present plaintiffs - Held Further Plaintiffs are presumed to be co - shareres being legal heirs of Shah Farman and shall be presumed o be in possession of suit property alongwith other co - owners - Petition accordingly dismissed [P 18] A B C Haji Ghulam Basit Advocate for petitioners Mr Saleh Mehmood Awan Advocate for respondentsJudgement Result:Petition dismissed.

Summary: Plj 1993 SC 147 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Muhammad Afzal Zullah CJ and Wal1 Muhammad Khanj Sardar Anwar Ali Khan and 10 others - Appellants versus Sardar Baqir Ali through his legal heirs and 4 others Respondents Civil Petition No235 - P of 1991 (converted into appeal) dismissed on 581992 [On appeal frem judgmentorder dated 791992 of Peshawar High Court passed in CR No 164 of 1991j Inheritance Suit claiming inheritance Dismissal throughout of Challenge to Plaintiffappellants failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that Haider Ali their alleged predecessor was son of Atai Khan and their bold allegation that Atai Khan was their great grand - father cannot be accepted particularly when claim to huge property is involved Even if it is assumed that plaintiffappellants are descendants of Yousaf Khan even then they were left with no proprietary rights in estate even according to pedigree table 1895 - 96 produced bythemselves Held All three forums have concurrently held that defendantrespondents are owners of suit property and that plaintiffappellants are not proved to be joint proprietors with them Held further Findings of fact are not open to challenge at this stage when no illegality jurisdictional error or misreading or non - reading of evidence could be pointed out Appeal dismissed [P 149 Jab MrAbdul Hamid Qureshi Aor for Appellants Sh Wazir Ahmad Aor for Responents 2 3 4Judgement Result:Appeal dismissed.

Summary: Background:This case concerns the interpretation of Section 4 of the Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, regarding the inheritance rights of grandchildren through their predeceased parents. The appellant, Mst. Zainab, is the granddaughter of Sufaid Khan, who passed away in 1972, leaving behind his estate. Zainab, being the daughter of Raju (Sufaid Khan's predeceased son), was transferred the entire estate after Raju's death. Kamal Khan, claiming to be the nephew and therefore a legal heir of Sufaid Khan, contested this transfer, asserting his ownership of the property. The case escalated from the trial court to the Lahore High Court and finally to the Supreme Court.----Issues:The primary issue was whether the intention of the lawmaker in Section 4 of the Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was solely to ensure that children of a predeceased son or daughter of the deceased (propositus) are entitled only to the Islamic Law shares they would inherit from their direct parent, and not to increase their share beyond what Islamic Law prescribes.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the interpretation of Section 4 of the Ordinance by the High Court was correct. It was determined that the intention of the law was not to enhance the shares of the grandchildren beyond what is prescribed by Islamic Law, but rather to ensure they are not deprived of their rightful share through their predeceased parent. The Court emphasized that the law must operate fairly and equitably, aligning with the principles of Islamic Inheritance Law, which prioritizes closer kin in the distribution of an estate. Consequently, Mst. Zainab was entitled only to the share her father would have inherited, not the entire estate of Sufaid Khan. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.----Citations/Precedents:Mst. Zarina Jan v. Mst. Akbar Jan [PLD 1975 Pesh. 252]: Referenced to support the appellant's argument regarding the interpretation of Section 4 of the Ordinance.Yusuf Abbas v. Ismat Mustafa [PLD 1968 Kar. 480]: Cited to support the appellant's contention on the literal interpretation of the Ordinance's provisions.Ibrahim v. Ncmat Bi [PLD 1988 Lah. 186]: Used to bolster the appellant's argument for a harmonious construction of the Ordinance with its provisions.Iqbal Mai v. Falak Sher [PLD 1986 SC 228]: Referenced by the respondent's counsel, highlighting the implications of amendments to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance and the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act Amendment Ordinance, 1983.Muhammad Fikree v. Fikree Development Corporation Ltd. [PLD 1988 Kar. 446]: Discussed to understand the applicability of Section 4 of the Ordinance in cases where grandchildren are otherwise entitled to inheritance under normal Sharia law.

Summary: Pij 1989 - Muhammad Haubm And O Safdar Sbah JJ Zafaeullah Khan at 33 Othsse Versos Muhammad S1doiq en Ottani Civil Appeal No 60 of 1975 decided OB 27 - 2 - 1980 tj HJb telMBilittitioa SJeaMt Scheme (1956) - Pra 46 and clause i or CD II Part 1Allottee acquires a right which is ia every sense of term real property in its true juristic concept and interest in landInheritance in ease of confirmed allottee is governed by Sbariat Act but ia caseofBOB con firmed allottee governance is effected by Para 46 (Farai 56) (h) CetoParties closely inter - relatedNo orders as to costs made M Silo Asc sad AMul Xarim Aor (absent) for Appellant Jtan Mammad Anwar St Asc with JEftafitf Iqbal Qmt Asc instructed by M A Qureghi Aor for Respondents Nos 1 to S Respondent No 9 tx font

Summary: ''The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit could not fail merely by reason of the fact that the consequential relief by way of possession had not been claimed is not altogether without substance. If his suit was otherwise maintainable and he was otherwise entitled to the relief it was open to the Courts to allow him to amend the plaint by adding a prayer for possession and paying the appropriate ad valorem court-fees and then to grant him relief even though he had not specifically asked for it"

Summary: (a) Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme (Punjab): ----Part II, Paras. 46 & 46(A) Succession to property of a refugee right-holder who died before migration—Applicability of Customary Law—Petitioners challenged the orders of the Collector and Additional Commissioner, who held that since the deceased right-holder had not migrated to Pakistan, he was not a refugee, and succession to his immovable property was to be governed by Customary Law—Held, the law of inheritance applicable to the estate of a right-holder who died before the enforcement of the Shariat Act is governed by paragraphs 46 and 46(A) of the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme—The purpose of attesting inheritance mutations under the Resettlement Scheme is not to determine the rights of heirs over the abandoned land in India but to decide who shall be allotted land in Pakistan in lieu of that abandoned property—Following the precedent set in Umar Daraz Ali v. Khurshid Ali, the relevant provisions of the Resettlement Scheme apply—Orders of lower courts set aside—Mutation to be attested afresh per paragraph 46 of the Scheme. Disposition: Petition accepted.

Summary: (a) Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948: ----S. 3 Inheritance—Dispute regarding priority of heirs—Summary inquiry by Revenue Officer—Petitioner claimed inheritance mutation in his favor as the sister’s son of the last male-holder—Respondents contested the mutation, asserting a claim based on their lineage—Key issue revolved around whether Mst. Imam Bibi, sister of the last male-holder, predeceased him or not—Revenue Officer initially attested inheritance mutation but failed to determine this factual question—Held, Revenue Officer is required to conduct a summary inquiry in an open assembly to ascertain facts in mutation proceedings, which serve as an accessible mechanism for rural communities to resolve inheritance matters efficiently—Appellate Court properly remanded the matter for re-evaluation—Contention that the issue should have been decided through a civil suit rejected—Revenue Officer must decide the factual question before disposing of the mutation case—Appeal dismissed. ---Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine.

Summary: (a) West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948)---- ----S. 3----Inheritance of property held by a widow with life interest----Applicability of Shariat to succession----Widow of deceased landowner held property with a life interest under Customary Law----Upon her death, she gifted the property to her granddaughter----Held, a widow holding property with a life interest could not gift it in a manner that deprived the rightful heirs under Shariat----Gift would be treated merely as a transfer effective only during the widow’s lifetime----Upon her death, the property had to devolve upon legal heirs under Shariat. (b) Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)---- ----Retrospective application----Scope----Petitioner contended that applying Shariat to succession would create an anomaly by governing succession to the same estate under both Customary Law (prevalent at the time of original owner's death) and Shariat (now in force)----Held, under S. 3 of the Shariat Act, succession to property held by a female under Customary Law must be determined as if Shariat was applicable at the time of the death of the last full owner----Legislative intent was clear that where succession had not been finally determined, Shariat would govern the inheritance. (c) Mutation of inheritance---- ----Validity of mutation entry based on an old decree----Scope----Revenue Officer entered mutation in favor of the petitioner based on a decree issued in 1944----Held, decree had not been acted upon for years and could not be given effect after the death of one of the decree-holders----Collector was justified in reviewing and correcting the mutation. Disposition: Petition rejected.