Summary: (a) Civil Law – Burden of Proof in Inheritance Claims: --- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 117 & 118 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 115 Plaintiffs (respondents No.1-6) failed to establish their legal heirship with the original allottee, Hassan Muhammad (deceased), through independent and corroborative evidence—Neither produced a properly authenticated pedigree table nor any independent witness from the revenue records—Held, mere pleading a fact in a suit does not suffice; it must be proved through reliable evidence—Reliance placed on Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue (2014 SCMR 914) and Mst. Khair-ul-Nisa v. Malik Muhammad Ishaque (PLD 1972 SC 25). (b) Fraudulent Power of Attorney – Burden to Prove Genuineness: --- Contract Act, 1872 – Registration Act, 1908 Appellants (defendants) failed to establish the validity of the alleged general power of attorney purportedly executed by the original allottee, Hassan Muhammad—Neither produced the principal himself (Hassan Muhammad) post-remand, nor provided any legitimate explanation for his absence or demise—Held, burden to prove a legal document's validity, particularly in cases of fraud, lies on the party relying on it—Reliance placed on Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain (2014 SCMR 1469). (c) Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits on High Court's Power to Reverse Concurrent Findings: --- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 115 High Court erroneously reversed the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, despite no misreading of evidence or jurisdictional error—Held, revisional courts cannot substitute their own findings unless lower court rulings are based on an illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence—Reliance placed on Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLJ 2023 SC 8) and Mst. Farzana Zia v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb (2024 SCMR 916). (d) Nazul Land – Disputed Land Reverts to Federal Government: --- Government Lands Act, 1912 – Land Disposal Regulations As neither party could prove a valid claim over the disputed land, the Supreme Court held that the land would revert to the Federal Government as ‘Nazul Land’—Revenue authorities directed to proceed as per applicable rules. ----Disposition: Civil Appeal Allowed. Peshawar High Court’s judgment set aside. Appellate Court’s decision restored. Disputed land remitted to the Federal Government as Nazul Land. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue (2014 SCMR 914) Mst. Khair-ul-Nisa v. Malik Muhammad Ishaque (PLD 1972 SC 25) Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain (2014 SCMR 1469) Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLJ 2023 SC 8) Mst. Farzana Zia v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb (2024 SCMR 916)

Summary: The petitioner claimed that impugned gift dated 27.02.1999 was made by the donor/father was angry with the respondent/daughter on account of her love marriage contracted in the year 1980. The gift was challenged within two years from the date of death of the father. Held: Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) has fixed share of inheritance and Holy Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has ordained not to cause harm to anyone and be just with the children and therefore, if a father gifts his property to his son (the petitioner) alone, with the sole intention of depriving his daughter (the respondent) of her rightful inheritance, the father inflicts harm?both material and moral. Such a gift is considered unjust and contrary to the teachings of Islam. The rationale is that such transactions contradict the fundamental objectives of Shariah, which seeks to uphold justice and equity in the family matters. (a) Islamic Law—Gift (Hiba) and Inheritance: —Validity of gift—Discriminatory treatment of legal heirs—Effect. Islamic law permits lifetime transfers of property through gifts (Hiba), provided they meet essential legal conditions: (i) declaration by the donor, (ii) acceptance by the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession. However, gifts intended to unjustly exclude other rightful heirs contravene Islamic principles of fairness and equity. The donor, being the father of both the petitioner and respondent, allegedly gifted the suit property to the petitioner (son) due to anger against the respondent (daughter) over her marriage. Such motivation, if aimed at depriving a legal heir of inheritance, is contrary to the teachings of Islam, as emphasized in Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 2587 and Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 2341. The Court held that a gift executed under such circumstances is legally impermissible and does not override the respondent’s right to inheritance. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: —Art. 129(g)—Adverse presumption—Failure to produce key witness—Effect. The petitioner claimed that the gift mutation was attested in the presence of a key witness, Yaseen. However, the said witness was never produced before the Court, nor was any attempt made to introduce secondary evidence in his absence. The best available evidence was withheld, triggering an adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court ruled that withholding such crucial evidence further weakened the petitioner’s claim and rendered the alleged oral gift unproven. (c) Contract Act, 1872: —S. 16—Undue influence—Gift executed under distress—Legal consequences. The petitioner argued that the donor (father) gifted the property to him due to his continuous distress over the respondent’s marriage. The Court observed that distress over a period of 19 years suggested undue influence, as the donor may have lacked the mental capacity to make a free and rational decision. Under S. 16 of the Contract Act, 1872, a transaction is voidable if one party dominates the will of another due to authority, fiduciary relations, or mental distress. Given that the donor participated in the respondent’s second marriage, it was improbable that he remained hostile for decades and transferred the entire property solely out of resentment. The Court held that the gift, even if executed, was legally questionable. (d) Civil Procedure—Concurrent findings of fact: —Scope of revisional jurisdiction—High Court’s power to interfere. It is a settled principle that revisional courts do not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they suffer from illegality, jurisdictional defect, misreading of evidence, or procedural impropriety. The petitioner failed to establish any such grounds. The High Court, therefore, upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, dismissing the petitioner’s revision petition. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed. Gift mutation declared invalid. Judgment of lower courts upheld.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---S. 42 ----Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.22---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Declaration of title---Validity of gift-deed challenged by legal heir---Sharai inheritance rights of widow---Effect of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The widow of the deceased, Mst. Begum Bibi, filed a suit claiming her Sharai share (1/4th) in the estate of her husband, Shukar Din, asserting that the alleged gift-deed (Exh. D.2), executed on 3-4-1978 and registered on 10-4-1978 in favor of the defendant, Fakr Din (brother of the deceased), was fraudulent and ineffective against her inheritance rights. The trial court (07-01-1984) and first appellate court (06-06-1985) dismissed the suit, but the Lahore High Court set aside these findings (30-04-2004) and granted the plaintiff a decree of title. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, holding that once the trial court had emphatically determined that Mst. Begum Bibi was the lawful wife of the deceased and had not been divorced, this finding attained finality as it was never challenged through appeal or cross-objections. The gift-deed itself recorded that Shukar Din had divorced his wife and was issueless, implying that his property should have passed to his brothers. However, the Court observed that the presence of another brother, besides Fakr Din, had been deliberately suppressed, suggesting mala fide intent to deprive both the widow and the other brother of their rightful shares. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of the trial court and first appellate court suffered from misreading and non-reading of evidence, which the High Court correctly rectified. Since the gift itself was not proved, it was evidently executed to deprive the widow of her Sharai share. (b) Law of Inheritance---Fraudulent transfer of property---Sharai rights of widow---Burden of proof on donee. The Supreme Court held that when the existence of a widow was established, her Sharai right in the deceased’s estate could not be overridden by an alleged gift-deed in favor of a brother. The very execution of the gift-deed indicated an attempt to circumvent inheritance laws. The petitioner’s failure to challenge the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff was the lawful wife further strengthened her claim. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused on the grounds that the High Court’s decision was in accordance with the evidence on record and principles of natural justice. Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Summary: (a) Gift under Islamic Law ----Gift—Essentials—Burden of proof—Validity of gift deed questioned due to lack of property description—Plaintiff claimed ownership based on a gift deed dated 12.04.1979, but the document lacked proper identification (Khasra, Khewat, and Khatooni numbers)—Held, under Islamic law, three conditions must be met: (1) offer by the donor, (2) acceptance by the donee, and (3) delivery of possession—Non-production of marginal witnesses and person who accepted the gift on behalf of the donee rendered the transaction suspicious—Reliance placed on Muhammad Boota v. Mst. Bano Begum (2005 SCMR 1885) and Mst. Nazeeran v. Ali Bux (2024 SCMR 1271). (b) Registration & Presumption of Validity ----Registered document—Presumption of authenticity—Challenged gift deed—Petitioner argued that registration of gift deed sufficed to prove its validity—Held, registration creates a presumption of truth but does not establish authenticity if challenged—Once questioned, burden shifts to the beneficiary to prove its genuineness—Reliance placed on Khalid Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad (2021 SCMR 1986) and Cooperative Model Town Society v. Mst. Asghari Safdar (2005 SCMR 931). (c) Possession & Constructive Notice ----Long-standing possession—Claim of ownership—Effect of mutation & inheritance—Petitioner relied on long possession and utility bills to claim ownership—However, in 1987, he himself got the property mutated in favor of all legal heirs of the donor, contradicting his claim—Further, a family agreement (Exh.DW-2/1) in 1993 allowed him to use the property temporarily—Held, mere possession does not establish ownership, especially when mutation of inheritance was attested—Reliance placed on Umar Gul v. Dr. Hafiza Akhtar (2025 SCP 23). (d) Res Judicata & Appeal Maintainability ----Res judicata—Consolidated judgment—Failure to challenge all decrees—Petitioner argued that respondent No.1’s appeal should have been dismissed as res judicata—Held, multiple suits were consolidated, but respondent No.1 only challenged the decree adversely affecting his rights, which was permissible—Reliance placed on Khair Muhammad v. Muhammad Hussain (PLD 2006 SC 577). (e) Disposition Civil revision dismissed. Petitioner failed to prove a valid gift due to (i) lack of proper property description, (ii) non-production of key witnesses, (iii) contradictory documentary evidence (mutation and family agreement), and (iv) failure to discharge burden of proof. The appellate court's decision upholding the cancellation of the gift was found to be legally sound.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----Ss. 64 & 10—Attachment of property—Effect of private transfer after attachment—Void transactions—Suit property was attached by the executing court on 20.01.2007 for enforcement of a maintenance decree—Defendant No.1, the second wife of the deceased, subsequently transferred the property to herself and her son through gift mutations Nos. 12399 & 12410 dated 31.05.2010—Held, once property is attached by a court, any subsequent private transfer is void ab initio under Section 64 CPC—Defendant No.1’s claim that the judgment debtor had partially paid maintenance did not nullify the attachment order—Reliance placed on Amjad Iqbal v. Mst. Nida Sohail (2015 SC 128). (b) Family Law—Maintenance and Inheritance Rights ----West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, Ss. 13(3), 17—Execution of maintenance decree—Protection of minor daughters' rights—Deceased father, despite maintenance obligations, fraudulently transferred property to frustrate the execution of the maintenance decree—Family Courts Act, Section 13(3) empowers the court to enforce its decree—Held, fraudulent transactions made to defeat lawful maintenance claims and deprive daughters of inheritance are invalid—Courts must ensure that maintenance decrees are not circumvented through sham transactions—Reliance placed on Amjad Iqbal case (2015 SC 128), where similar transactions were declared null and void. (c) Gift Transactions—Judicial Scrutiny ----Islamic Law—Inheritance rights—Validity of gifts during litigation—Transfers of property via gift mutations to some heirs while excluding others raise concerns under Islamic inheritance law—Gifts made under suspicious circumstances, particularly to deprive legal heirs, must be closely examined—Held, courts have the power to scrutinize such gifts and set aside transactions aimed at disinheriting rightful heirs. (d) Appellate Court’s Error—Failure to Consider Execution Proceedings ----Reversal of trial court’s decree—Failure to assess legal effect of attachment and fraudulent transfers—Trial court correctly decreed the suit, recognizing that the gift mutations were fraudulent and that the plaintiffs were deprived of their lawful inheritance and maintenance—However, appellate court erroneously dismissed the suit without considering the executing court’s orders and legal bar under Section 64 CPC—Held, appellate court’s decision was legally flawed and unsustainable—Impugned appellate judgment set aside, and trial court’s decree restored. ----- Disposition: Civil revision allowed. Judgment of the appellate court set aside. Suit of plaintiffs/petitioners decreed as per the trial court’s decision.

Summary: (a) Inheritance and Devolution of Property in Post-Partition Land Settlement ----Land allotted post-partition was in lieu of property left in India and did not form part of original inheritance. The petitioners contended that the suit property was inherited from their ancestor, Hakim Ali, and should have devolved upon his three sons in equal shares. However, the court found that Hakim Ali had passed away before the partition of the subcontinent. The property in question was not inherited from him but was allotted separately to his three sons after migration in lieu of properties left in India. Cited Case Law: None specifically referenced (b) Suit for Declaration – No Creation of New Rights ----A declaratory suit can only recognize pre-existing rights and cannot create new legal entitlements. The court held that a suit for declaration cannot create new rights but only affirms existing ones. The petitioners failed to establish that their ancestor owned the claimed property, and the court rejected their attempt to claim ownership through a declaration. Cited Case Law: None specifically referenced (c) Fatal Defect in Suit – Non-Impleadment of Necessary Parties ----Failure to implead revenue officials and the Province of Punjab was a fatal procedural defect. The petitioners alleged collusion between private respondents and government officials in the property’s mutation. However, they failed to implead the Province of Punjab or relevant revenue officials as necessary defendants. The court ruled that this omission was a fundamental defect, rendering the suit untenable. Cited Case Law: None specifically referenced (d) Bar on Reopening Long-Settled Transactions ----Land sold through a registered sale deed in 1966 cannot be challenged after decades. The court noted that the predecessor of the petitioners, Fateh Muhammad, had already sold his allotted property via a registered sale deed on 10.10.1966, and the petitioners only initiated the suit in 2000—after more than three decades. The claim was dismissed on grounds of delay and lack of legal standing. Cited Case Law: None specifically referenced Disposition: Civil Revision Dismissed—No Proof of Original Ownership—Failure to Implead Necessary Parties—Long-Settled Transactions Cannot Be Challenged.

Summary: (a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) ----S. 115---Revision---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by High Court. Petitioners challenged concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit for declaration and consequential relief filed by the respondent was decreed. ----Held: Findings of fact recorded by the trial and appellate courts, based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, are not to be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence, material illegality, or jurisdictional defect. Revisional jurisdiction is not an appellate power to reassess facts or substitute findings of lower courts merely because a different view is possible. Cited Cases: Syed Husnain Naqvi v. Mst. Begum Zakara Chatha 2015 SCMR 1081 Noor Muhammad v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi 2012 SCMR 1373 Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna 2001 SCMR 1700 Ghulam Muhammad v. Ghulam Ali 2004 SCMR 1001 Abdul Mateen v. Mustakhia 2006 SCMR 50 Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi 2008 SCMR 428 (b) Muslim Personal Law---Sectarian affiliation of deceased---Presumption of faith ----Inheritance---Determination of sect of deceased---Burden of proof---Standard of evidence. Dispute arose regarding the sect of deceased Ali Muhammad, affecting inheritance rights. The petitioners contended that he was Shia, while the respondents maintained he was Sunni-Hanafi. ----Held: In the Indo-Pak Subcontinent, the presumption is that a Muslim is governed by Hanafi law unless contrary evidence is produced (Pathana v. Mst. Wasai PLD 1965 SC 134). The burden of proof lies on the party asserting deviation from this presumption (Abdul Rehman v. Mst. Allah Wasai 2022 SCMR 399). Respondents produced credible oral and documentary evidence, including testimony of an Imam who led the deceased’s funeral prayer, local witnesses, and affidavits affirming his Sunni-Hanafi faith. In contrast, the petitioners failed to provide convincing rebuttal evidence. Petitioners' key witness lacked fundamental knowledge of Shia practices, and contradictions in their statements further weakened their case. Cited Cases: Pathana v. Mst. Wasai PLD 1965 SC 134 Abdul Rehman v. Mst. Allah Wasai 2022 SCMR 399 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (P.O. 10 of 1984) ----Arts. 117 & 118---Burden of proof---Rebuttable presumption. Under Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact. If a legal presumption exists, the opposing party must disprove it. The respondents successfully discharged their burden by proving the deceased’s Sunni-Hanafi affiliation, shifting the burden to the petitioners, who failed to disprove it. (d) Revenue Law---Inheritance Mutation---Summary nature of revenue proceedings ----Inheritance mutation attested based on oral statements---Competence of Revenue Officer. Petitioners relied on inheritance mutation attested by the Revenue Officer indicating the deceased was of the Shia sect. ----Held: Revenue officers are not judicial authorities competent to conclusively determine religious affiliation. Given the contested nature of the deceased’s sect, reliance on oral statements without judicial scrutiny was improper. Revenue authorities should have referred the dispute to a competent court instead of summarily attesting the mutation. Disposition: Civil Revision dismissed. Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld. No misreading or non-reading of evidence found.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---Limited estate under Customary Law---Death of limited owner---Reversion to last male owner---Property originally belonged to Ditt who died in 1918/1919 and his widow Mst. Gulab Bibi was recorded as limited owner under Customary Law---Upon her death in 1950, her limited interest came to an end and property reverted to last male owner, namely Ditt---Inheritance was thereafter to be determined according to Muslim Law among heirs of Ditt. (b) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---Customary Law---Limited interest of widow---Effect of death/remarriage---Under Customary Law, limited interest enjoyed by widow terminates upon her death or remarriage---Such widow does not become absolute owner merely because mutation was entered in her favour as life estate holder---After termination of limited estate, property reverts to estate of last male owner for distribution under Muslim Law. (c) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---Classes of heirs---Sharers, residuaries and distant kindred---Under Hanafi Law, heirs are divided into three classes: sharers, residuaries and distant kindred---First entitlement belongs to sharers, thereafter residuaries take residue---Distant kindred inherit only when neither sharers nor residuaries exist---Estate of deceased Muslim devolves upon legal heirs according to respective shares and circumstances of each case. (d) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---Rule that nearer excludes remote---Residuaries---Effect---Where two heirs fall in same line or class, nearer relation excludes remoter relation---If surviving relations are son and son’s son, son alone inherits and grandson is excluded---Likewise, where real brother or his legal heirs are nearer in degree to deceased, remoter collateral heirs cannot claim inheritance in their presence. (e) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---No distinction between movable and immovable property---No distinction between ancestral and self-acquired property---Supreme Court held that Islamic law of inheritance makes no distinction between movable and immovable property, nor between ancestral and self-acquired property---All estate of deceased Muslim devolves according to Islamic law shares and rules of exclusion. (f) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---Daughter of deceased---Proof of relationship---High Court had found, on appraisal of evidence, that Mst. Resham Bibi was daughter of Ditt deceased---Supreme Court upheld such finding, noting that it was not anyone’s case that Mst. Gulab Bibi had earlier married another person or that Mst. Resham Bibi was daughter from another husband---Finding that Mst. Resham Bibi was daughter of Ditt was supported by evidence and warranted no interference. (g) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---Widow, daughter and real brother of deceased---Entitlement---After death of limited owner Mst. Gulab Bibi, estate of Ditt was to be distributed among his widow Mst. Gulab Bibi, his daughter Mst. Resham Bibi and his real brother Bhola---Plaintiff Nawab, being in collateral line of Faiza, was excluded by nearer heir Bhola or his legal heirs. (h) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---Collateral heirs---Exclusion by nearer collateral---Plaintiff claimed share through collateral line, but pedigree showed Bhola, real brother of deceased Ditt, or his heirs were nearer in degree than plaintiff---Supreme Court held that plaintiff stood excluded by Bhola or his heirs and was not entitled to claim share in Ditt’s property. (i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent/factual findings---High Court reversed findings of first appellate Court on question whether Mst. Resham Bibi was daughter of Ditt and on legal effect of pedigree and inheritance---Supreme Court found High Court’s conclusion supported by record and consistent with Islamic inheritance principles---No valid reason existed to interfere. (j) Limitation / acquiescence---- ----Inheritance claim---Long non-assertion of title---Effect---After death of Mst. Gulab Bibi in 1950, respondents and Allah Rakha were alive, yet Allah Rakha or his legal heirs did not assert title from 1950 to 1970---High Court observed that such right stood extinguished and legal heirs of Allah Rakha were satisfied with gift made by respondents, amounting to recognition of respondents’ title---Plaintiff could not thereafter enforce title of Allah Rakha and claim share as residuary. (k) Evidence---- ----Pedigree table---Inheritance dispute---Effect---Pedigree reflected two persons by name Nawab; plaintiff Nawab belonged to line of Faiza, whereas other Nawab was son of Bhola---Since Bhola was real brother of Ditt and nearer in degree, plaintiff from remoter collateral line had no inheritable share---High Court correctly appreciated pedigree and evidence. (l) Islamic Law---- ----Inheritance---Residuary claim after sharers---Effect---Even if it was assumed that Ditt left no daughter, plaintiff’s claim would still fail because Bhola, real brother of Ditt, or his heirs, being nearer in degree, would exclude plaintiff from inheritance---Thus appellant could not succeed either on disputed fact of daughtership or on rule of residuary succession. Disposition: Civil Appeal No.266 of 1995 was dismissed; judgment of Lahore High Court was maintained; Supreme Court held that plaintiff/appellants were excluded from inheritance by nearer heirs and that High Court’s judgment was in consonance with principles of Muslim Law of Inheritance.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law—Inheritance ----Muslim Personal Law—Devolution of estate—Co-sharers Property inherited by Muslim legal heirs devolves immediately on death of predecessor—Heirs become co-owners—Possession of one heir deemed to be constructive possession on behalf of all heirs unless there is clear, unequivocal repudiation of rights of other heirs—Brothers’ possession treated as possession of sisters—Female heirs cannot be non-suited merely on lapse of time where inheritance rights subsist. (b) Limitation Act ----Arts. 142 & 144—Suit for declaration—Fraud—Co-sharers Where a co-sharer is deprived of inheritance through fraud, limitation does not run against such heir—Fraudulent mutation cannot extinguish inheritance rights—Suit by female heirs for declaration of ownership held not barred by limitation as their status as co-sharers continued and they were deemed in constructive possession—Doctrine reaffirmed as laid down in Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1. (c) Revenue Law—Mutation ----Sale mutation—Proof—Fraud Mutation alleged to be based on sale must be proved by cogent evidence of consideration and genuine transaction—Sale mutation attested in absence of female heirs by producing impersonators held fictitious, collusive and fraudulent—Such mutation ineffective against lawful rights of heirs—No proprietary title can be founded on a fraudulent mutation. (d) Fraud—Effect ----General principles—Vitiation of proceedings Fraud, once established, vitiates even the most solemn transactions and proceedings—A person cannot derive any legal benefit from a transaction tainted with fraud—Courts duty-bound to strike down fraudulent devices used to deprive lawful heirs, particularly female heirs, of inheritance. (e) Civil Procedure—Revisional jurisdiction ----Concurrent findings—Interference justified Where findings of courts below establish fraud and denial of inheritance, revisional court justified in interfering notwithstanding earlier findings on limitation—High Court correctly set aside judgments which non-suited plaintiffs on technical ground of limitation despite proven fraud. Cited Cases: • Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 • Ghias-ud-Din v. Iqbal Ahmad PLD 1975 Lah. 780 • Lal v. Muhammad Ibrahim 1993 SCMR 710 • Government of Sindh v. Khalil Ahmad 1994 SCMR 782 • John Paul v. Irshad Ali PLD 1997 Kar. 267 • Mst. Sarwar Begum v. Atta-ur-Rehman 1997 CLC 1500 (g) Disposition — Leave to appeal declined—Petition dismissed—Judgment of Lahore High Court setting aside concurrent findings and upholding inheritance rights of female heirs affirmed.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877): ----Ss. 8, 39 & 42--- Declaratory relief and joint possession---Invalidation of Aaknama and related transactions. The Aaknama (letter of disinheritance) executed in 1956 by the deceased Noor Din, and the subsequent mutation and gift deeds, were held to be ab initio void as they violated Islamic inheritance law. Under Muslim law, inheritance devolves immediately upon the death of a Muslim, and no document or action can lawfully disinherit legal heirs without a valid legal transfer. The plaintiff-appellant, as an heir, could not be deprived of her legitimate share in the estate left by her father. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908): ----Arts. 91, 95 & 120--- Suit for cancellation of instrument and declaration of inheritance---Commencement of limitation. The limitation for cancellation of an instrument (Article 91) and suits involving declarations of rights under inheritance (Articles 95 & 120) begins from the date the plaintiff gains knowledge of the adverse action. In the present case, the plaintiff pleaded lack of knowledge of the Aaknama and related transactions until 1996, and filed the suit within six months of such knowledge. The Court held that the suit was within time as the cause of action arose upon the plaintiff’s awareness of her rights being denied. (c) Muslim Law--- Inheritance--- Immediate devolution of property upon death: Inheritance under Muslim law devolves automatically upon the legal heirs at the moment of the deceased's death. No act, such as a mutation or registration, is necessary to vest the inheritance in the heirs. The rights of an heir cannot be extinguished by subsequent transactions, including disinheritance documents or mutations, unless such actions are in compliance with legal provisions and Islamic principles. (d) Revenue Law--- Entries in the Record of Rights--- Evidentiary value: Entries in the Record of Rights, mutations, and gift deeds are merely evidence of possession and do not confer or extinguish title. Such entries, if contrary to the rightful inheritance of legal heirs, are void and ineffective. Inheritance rights take precedence over such records. (e) Estoppel--- Application in inheritance cases: The rule of estoppel does not apply to inheritance cases where the legal heir was deprived of their share without their knowledge or consent. Even if the heir is not recorded in the Revenue Record, they retain their co-sharer rights, and any transaction denying such rights can be challenged as void. ----Disposition: The appeal was allowed. The judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. The Aaknama executed in 1956, subsequent mutations, and related transactions were declared void and ineffective. The plaintiff-appellant was recognized as a co-sharer in the joint estate of her deceased father. The Revenue Department was directed to determine her share, which would be satisfied through partition.