Summary: (a) Inheritance Law – Right of Heirs ----Inheritance rights in the estate of a deceased Muslim----Constructive possession----Limitation Act, 1908----Scope. The estate of a Muslim, upon his death, devolves upon his legal heirs by operation of law. Each heir retains constructive possession of their share in the estate until partition or lawful transfer. If an heir is deprived of their share in an inheritance mutation, the cause of action arises when they seek their share and it is denied. However, where third-party rights have been created in the inherited property, the limitation period becomes applicable, requiring the claimant heir to establish fraud or ignorance of their rights to invoke an exception under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Cited Cases: Mohammad Boota (decd) v. Mst. Fatima (2023 SCMR 1901) Mst. Parveen (decd) v. Muhammad Pervaiz (2022 SCMR 64) Noor Din (decd) v. Pervaiz Akhtar (2023 SCMR 1928) Ghulam Qasim v. Mst. Razia Begum (PLD 2021 SC 812) Tahsinullah v. Mst. Parveen (decd) (2022 SCMR 346) Lal Din v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1993 SCMR 710) Bashir Ahmad Anjum v. Muhammad Raffique (2021 SCMR 772) Nazir Ahmad v. Abdullah (1997 SCMR 281) (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----S. 18----Effect of fraud in inheritance disputes----Exceptions to limitation period----Scope. Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a claimant heir alleging fraud must demonstrate that they were kept from knowledge of their right to sue due to fraudulent concealment. The limitation period begins from the date the fraud first became known to the “injuriously affected person.” However, if the affected heir does not initiate legal proceedings within the prescribed limitation period upon discovering the fraud, no fresh period of limitation is available to their legal successors. Cited Case: Mst. Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan (2022 SCMR 1009) (c) Limitation in Cases of Third-Party Rights in Inherited Property ----Applicability of limitation where third-party interests have been created----Doctrine of actual vs. constructive denial----Scope. A distinction is made between: (i) cases where an heir is deprived of their rightful share in inheritance at the time of mutation; and (ii) cases where third-party rights have been created in the inherited property. In the former, the limitation period starts when the heir is denied their share. In the latter, where land has been sold to third parties, the limitation period applies, barring claims after its expiration. In the present case, transactions affecting the disputed property took place decades ago, with sales occurring in 1994 and 1997, barring the claimants from seeking redress under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Cited Cases: Haji Muhammad Yunis v. Mst. Farukh Sultan (2022 SCMR 1282) Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) (d) Civil Procedure – Obligation of Courts to Consider Limitation ----S. 3, Limitation Act, 1908----Duty of courts to dismiss time-barred claims regardless of whether limitation is pleaded as a defense----Scope. Courts are bound to dismiss suits, appeals, and applications filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, even if the issue of limitation is not raised by the parties. The appellants’ claim, filed in 2007, was time-barred given that transactions creating third-party interests took place as early as 1994 and 1997. Disposition Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellants’ claim was barred by limitation. The Court reaffirmed that where concurrent findings of fact and law exist, it will not interfere unless exceptional circumstances warrant intervention, which were absent in this case.

Summary: Background:The case involves Mst. Sehat Bibi, the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated October 6, 2017, by the High Court of Balochistan in Civil Revision No. 22 of 2016. The appellant sought the restoration of her 1/3 share in the agricultural lands of late Daulat Khan situated in Mouza Boston, Tehsil Sibi, as opposed to receiving a 1/3 share of the sale price of the land as decreed by the High Court. The land in question was originally owned by late Daulat Khan, who passed away in 1980, leaving behind two legal heirs: Mst. Sehat Bibi and Bahar Khan, the respondent No. 1. Bahar Khan had taken control of the property and transferred it to his name through an alleged oral gift and later sold parts of the property to Muhammad Zakria, respondent No. 2.----Issues:The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Mst. Sehat Bibi, as a co-sharer and legal heir, was entitled to a 1/3 share of the actual land inherited from her father, rather than just a 1/3 share of the sale proceeds from the land sold by Bahar Khan.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Mst. Sehat Bibi was indeed entitled to a 1/3 share of the entire property of late Daulat Khan, not just the sale proceeds. The Court found that the original mutation (Mutation No. 56 dated March 24, 1981), which transferred the entire property to Bahar Khan based on an alleged oral gift, was procured fraudulently, excluding Mst. Sehat Bibi from her rightful inheritance. The Court cancelled this mutation and all subsequent mutations based on it, directing the revenue authorities to re-mutate the entire property among the legal heirs, Mst. Sehat Bibi and Bahar Khan, in accordance with the law. The property already sold by Bahar Khan was to be included in his share of the inheritance.----Citations/Precedents:Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another (2021 SCMR 179): This case reinforced the principle that legal heirs inherit property immediately upon the predecessor's death.Shahro and others v. Mst. Fatima and others (PLD 1998 SC 1512): This precedent highlighted that a daughter cannot be deprived of her right to inherited property by illegal mutations sanctioned in favor of male heirs.Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Article 129(g): This legal provision allows for adverse inference to be drawn when the best evidence is withheld, supporting the conclusion that the mutation was fraudulently obtained to exclude Mst. Sehat Bibi from her inheritance.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged an oral gift mutation executed on 28.04.1984, claiming that her share in her father’s property was transferred to her brothers (the respondents) through fraud, depriving her of her rightful inheritance. The Civil Judge granted interim relief by restraining the respondents from alienating the disputed property. However, the Additional District Judge, on appeal, dismissed the interim relief on the technical ground that the petitioner failed to include all legal heirs of her father as defendants in the suit. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case for interim relief. ----2- Whether the petitioner’s failure to include other legal heirs as defendants warranted the dismissal of her application for interim relief. ----3- Whether the appellate court correctly applied the principles for granting temporary injunctions. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioner had established a prima facie case, as there was a clear contradiction between the oral gift mutation and the respondents' claim that they had purchased her share. The appellate court’s decision to dismiss the petitioner’s application due to non-joinder of other legal heirs was found to be erroneous. The court emphasized that non-joinder of proper parties is an irregularity, not a fatal defect, and does not affect the petitioner’s right to claim her share. The court reinstated the trial court's order, which granted interim relief, and clarified that the trial court should not be influenced by these findings when deciding the case on merits. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Sheedan Begum and others v. Muhammad Usman Khan and others (2021 MLD 1937) Ashiq Muhammad and others v. Mst. Suhagan (2023 SCMR 1171)

Summary: (a) Islamic Inheritance Law--- ----Concept of Takharuj---Relinquishment of Sharai share---Burden of proof and evidentiary requirements. The petitioner failed to prove that the defendant voluntarily relinquished her Sharai share in inheritance through takharuj. The court held that takharuj, as recognized under Islamic inheritance law, requires clear evidence of voluntary relinquishment, free from coercion, undue influence, or fraud. Furthermore, the alleged relinquishment must be reduced into writing or substantiated through credible evidence. In this case, neither the alleged relinquishment nor the related deed satisfied the evidentiary standards, and the customary practice of depriving women of their inheritance was deemed invalid. -----Cited Precedents: Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) Mst. Parveen (deceased) through LRs v. Muhammad Pervaiz (2022 SCMR 64) (b) Customary practices vs. Islamic inheritance law--- ----Relinquishment of inheritance rights by women---Public policy considerations. The court reiterated that the enforcement of Islamic inheritance laws, particularly in favor of female heirs, is a matter of public policy. Any purported relinquishment of inheritance rights by women, even if proven, is void if it contravenes public policy or Islamic jurisprudence. The practice of denying women their Sharai shares under cultural or social pretexts is expressly rejected by courts in Pakistan, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in multiple judgments. (c) Evidence Law--- ----Documentary and oral evidence---Standard for proving relinquishment in inheritance disputes. Relinquishment of inheritance rights must be established through clear and credible evidence. In this case, oral testimony failed to corroborate the alleged relinquishment, as witnesses provided inconsistent statements and failed to prove the essential elements of takharuj. The court also noted that the deed presented as evidence did not bear the defendant’s signature or consent, further invalidating the claim. -----Disposition: Revision dismissed. The petitioner's claim of relinquishment was held to be unproven and devoid of merit. The defendant's Sharai share in the inheritance remains intact, with costs imposed on the petitioner.

Summary: The LHC held that inheritance of a Muslim is to be devolved upon his/her legal heirs as per Shariah irrespective of the custom prevailing at that time. No limitation runs in inheritance matters. The moment a Muslim closes his/her eyes, legal heirs become owners of their respective share which cannot be taken away on mere basis of an entry in the revenue record ---- The crux of the dispute lies in the inheritance of a substantial land parcel owned by Fateh Khan. The respondents posit that certain legal heirs were unjustly excluded in the mutation entries. The trial court, in its deliberations, meticulously framed a series of issues encapsulating the validity of mutations, the entitlement to inheritance, and the jurisdictional scope of the court.The court conducts a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties. Key witnesses include Rab Nawaz and Sher Muhammad, who provide divergent perspectives on the inheritance matter.The court refuted the petitioners' objections by emphasizing the clarity in Islamic law regarding the rights of Muslim heirs. The judgment meticulously dissects the objections raised, dismissing the contention that the suit is time-barred. The court asserts that, upon the death of the deceased, legal heirs automatically become absolute owners, and no statute of limitations operates against inheritance matters.In its concluding remarks, the court meticulously affirms the legal soundness of the judgments issued by the lower courts. The judgment elucidates the court's adherence to Islamic legal principles in determining inheritance rights and systematically rebuffs the challenges raised by the petitioners against the findings of the lower courts. Ultimately, both Civil Revisions are dismissed on grounds of lacking merit, solidifying the court's commitment to upholding the principles of Islamic law in matters of inheritance.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 1(2), 4(1), 5 & 7(1)---Maintainability of complaint---Conditions precedent---Scope---For the Federal Ombudsperson to assume jurisdiction under the Act, two conditions must be met: (i) the property in dispute is situated within the territorial limits of the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT); and (ii) the complainant is deprived of ownership or possession of her property—In the present case, both properties situated in Bahria Town and Gulberg Greens, Islamabad, fall within ICT—Respondents admitted complainants’ status as lawful sisters and their entitlement to inheritance—Held, complainants were deprived of ownership and possession of their shares; complaint maintainable. (b) Constitutional challenge to Act, 2020 ----W.P. No. 529/2021 (Islamabad High Court)---Effect of suspension order---Although the Act was earlier declared *ultra vires* by the learned Single Bench, operation of that judgment was suspended by a Division Bench in ICA No. 85/2023 dated 16-03-2023—Therefore, the Ombudsperson lawfully retained jurisdiction to proceed with complaints under the Act pending final adjudication of the constitutional challenge. (c) Inheritance—Partition and liabilities of deceased ----Undivided property---Objection that estate was not partitioned or liabilities not settled—Held, immaterial—Where ownership and shares under Islamic law are ascertainable, non-partition does not preclude relief—Unpaid debts/liabilities may be adjusted among legal heirs proportionally without defeating the women’s claim—Reliance placed on *Muhammad Yousaf v. Ghayyur Hussain Shah* (1993 SCMR 1185). (d) Parallel civil proceedings ----Pending litigation---Effect---Under S.7 of the Act, the Federal Ombudsperson may exercise jurisdiction even if the subject matter is *sub judice* before a civil court—Pendency of civil suit does not bar cognizance unless the matter is conclusively adjudicated—No evidence produced showing civil case near final disposal. (e) Disposition— Objections to maintainability dismissed—Complaint held maintainable under Ss. 4 and 7 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020—Matter fixed for written reply of remaining respondent.

Summary: The court meticulously addressed a property dispute concerning an inheritance claim over agricultural land. The dispute originated from Raj Bibi's allegation that her brother, Khushi Muhammad, fraudulently transferred inherited property to his name. The judgment, delivered by Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh, provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal and factual issues involved, overturning the lower court's decision which had dismissed Raj Bibi's claim.The court first tackled procedural issues, notably the suit's maintainability and the statute of limitations. It established that as a co-sharer in undivided property, Raj Bibi was not restricted by a limitation period in challenging the mutation, aligning with the principle that no limitation runs against a co-sharer, as seen in precedents like "Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others" (2021 SCMR 1986). The court also determined that Raj Bibi's action was timely and not barred by limitation, drawing from the principle that fraud affects the start of the limitation period, a notion supported by "Mst. Rabia Gula and others v. Muhammad Janan and others" (2022 SCMR 1009).The judgment then delved into the substantive legal issues surrounding the contested mutation. It emphasized the procedural requirements under Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, for mutation attestation, noting that mutations serve fiscal purposes and are designed to prevent fraud, without conferring title. The court cited "Gharib Shah and others v. Zarmar Gul" (PLD 1984 SC 188) and "Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and others" (1992 SCMR 1832) to underscore the mandatory nature of these procedures and their role in protecting proprietary rights.The court scrutinized the evidence, particularly the contested Roznamcha Waqiati entry and the lack of corroborative witness testimony. It found the mutation process flawed, as it did not comply with the legal requirements, particularly the need for the presence and identification of Raj Bibi during the mutation attestation.Moreover, the court addressed the heightened burden of proof in transactions involving illiterate or pardahnashin women, requiring clear evidence of their understanding and voluntary participation in transactions. This principle, reinforced in "Phul Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima" (2016 SCMR 1225) and "Abdul Aziz v. Mst. Zaib-un-Nissa and others" (PLD 2022 SC 504), was pivotal in the court's reasoning, leading to the conclusion that the mutation in favor of Khushi Muhammad was not legally substantiated.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court has jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court have jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court have jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.