Summary: Dispute about inheritance---Resjudicata---The central matter concerned a land estate that was previously owned by an individual who had passed away. The individual's daughter, who survived them, also passed away at a later point. After her passing, her descendants initiated a legal action, asserting their claim to inherit from the estate. The appellants argued that the Appellate Court's decision to reverse the Civil Judge's ruling and reinstate the descendants' claim was valid. They based their argument on principles of inheritance under Islamic law and contended that the concept of res judicata should not apply to cases governed by Muslim Personal Law. They cited a legal precedent to support their stance.Conversely, the respondents contended that the deceased daughter had previously filed a lawsuit for the same estate and cause of action, which was dismissed. They argued that the principle of res judicata, as outlined in specific sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be applicable. The respondents emphasized that the earlier court decision should not be ignored and that the subsequent lawsuit filed by the deceased daughter's descendants should be considered inadmissible.During the course of the proceedings, the appellants drew upon the aforementioned legal precedent, which was presumed to establish that the principle of res judicata did not extend to cases governed by Muslim Personal Law. However, the Court observed that the relevant legal framework did not explicitly exempt such cases from the principle of res judicata. The Court clarified that not all statements within a legal judgment hold binding precedent.Ultimately, the Court determined that the Appellate Court's dismissal of the principle of res judicata was a legal error and upheld the High Court's correction of this error. As a result, the lawsuit brought forward by the respondents' side in a subsequent year was dismissed due to the prior decision made nearly forty years earlier. The Court highlighted the importance of upholding the finality of decisions for the sake of public policy. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the case.

Summary: [(1) The gift of immovable property by a father under the Muhammadan Law in favour of his minor son could not be revoked. (2) No transfer of possession is required in case of gift by a father to his minor child or by a guardian to his ward. (3) Section 123 and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable to the hiba envisioned under the Muslim Law. (4) When the donor and the donee are related within the prohibited degree, a gift made cannot be revoked]---The original lawsuit was filed by the deceased respondent No. 1, claiming that his father had gifted him land in the year 1952. After the father's death, the respondent No. 1 discovered that his father had executed a document of revocation of the gift in 1970 and subsequently gifted the same land to the petitioners (defendants No. 2 to 6). The respondent No. 1 sought a declaration, cancellation of the documents, and relief of delivery of possession of the land.The trial court decreed in favor of the respondent No. 1, and the petitioners appealed, but their appeal was dismissed. The main contention was whether the gift of immovable property conveyed by a father to his minor child in 1952 could be revoked in 1970, even after possession had been delivered and accepted by the mother of the donee on his behalf. The court examined the principles of Muhammadan Law and noted that gifts to certain close relations within prohibited degrees, such as minor children, could not be revoked. It also emphasized that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to such gifts under Muslim Law.The court further discussed that once possession is delivered, revocation would require a decree from the court and not just the declaration of the donor. It also mentioned that the possession of the guardian, in this case, the mother, is considered the possession of the minor. The court referred to various authoritative sources and precedents to support its conclusion.Ultimately, the court held that the revocation made by the father on the pretext of non-handing over of possession was unlawful and that the cancellation deed was void in the eye of the law. The court upheld the earlier decisions and dismissed the petitioners' challenge.

Summary: Background: The appellants/their predecessors-in-interest filed a suit claiming their inheritance rights through Sahib-un-Nisa from Mehrban Ali?s estate after his death in 1908. The Appellate Court had initially ruled in favor of the appellants by setting aside the Civil Judge's dismissal of the suit. However, the High Court reversed the Appellate Court's decision, restoring the Civil Judge's dismissal based on the principle of res judicata.---Issue: Whether the principle of res judicata is applicable to cases involving Muslim Personal Law, specifically in matters of inheritance.---Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's application of the principle of res judicata to the case. The Court clarified that the Act does not stipulate the inapplicability of res judicata to Muslim Personal Law and cited previous judgments to support the applicability of res judicata in similar cases.---Rationale: The Supreme Court emphasized that not every observation in its judgments creates a binding precedent unless it decides a question of law or enunciates a principle of law as per Article 189 of the Constitution. The Court found that the Appellate Court had erred in disregarding the principle of res judicata, and the High Court had correctly rectified this mistake. The Court also highlighted the importance of public policy in not reopening disputes that have been finally decided.---Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to apply the principle of res judicata, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellants in 1997 on the grounds that the matter had been previously decided in 1958. The Court ruled that disputes once decided should not be reopened, maintaining the stability and finality of legal judgments. No order as to costs was made since the appeal was filed as of right.

Summary: [Gift, its requirements and inheritance] The appellant claimed her right to inheritance in the property left by her paternal grandfather, Ahmad, relying on Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The respondent uncles allegedly prepared a gift document, showing that Ahmad had gifted his entire land to them, thereby attempting to deprive the appellant of her rightful share in the estate.The appellant filed a suit in 1997, seeking cancellation of the gift deed and gift mutation and claiming her inheritance in her grandfather's estate. The High Court had previously set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court, dismissing the appellant's suit, leading to this appeal.The court examined the essential elements of a valid gift under Muslim law: a declaration of gift, acceptance of the gift, and delivery of possession of the subject of the gift. It was argued that the gift was not accepted by the donees (respondents) as required for a valid gift. The court analyzed the evidence and testimonies and found that the gift had not been accepted by the respondents.Furthermore, the court addressed the argument that Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance was no longer applicable due to a decision by the Federal Shariat Court. However, the court clarified that the case challenging the validity of Section 4 was still pending before the Shariat Appellate Bench, and until a final decision is reached, Section 4 remains the subsistent law of Pakistan.Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgment of the Appellate Court, which recognized the appellant's right to inheritance in her grandfather's estate. No costs were awarded in the case. The judgment was delivered on 27th January 2022.

Summary: [(1) Application of the law of limitation to inheritance cases. (2) Three different evidential standards of proof applicable in civil, criminal, and quasi-criminal cases, (3) Scope of jurisdiction of the revisional court in interfering with findings of fact]---the issue involved an estate left behind by an individual who passed away in 1959. The estate comprised land in a village called Jalalpur Sharif. The estate was inherited by a nephew. This nephew subsequently sold parts of the land to various individuals, who further sold or exchanged it.A group of individuals challenged the inheritance and subsequent transactions through a civil suit filed in 1982. They claimed to be rightful heirs and argued that they were deprived of their share due to fraudulent transactions. The case proceeded through trial and appellate courts, resulting in differing judgments. The final judgment by the Lahore High Court's revisional jurisdiction dismissed the suit on the grounds that the claimants failed to prove their relationship with the deceased and that the case was time-barred.The claimants contended that the evidence provided by witnesses with "special knowledge" supported their claim and that the preponderance of probability favored their stance. The opposing side argued that the claimants lacked sufficient evidence and that the revisional court's intervention was legally valid.The Supreme Court discussed the evidential standards of proof applicable in civil cases, emphasizing the "preponderance of probability." It discussed the concept of "fraud" as defined in the law and its relevance to the case. The Court found that the claimants had demonstrated their relationship with the deceased through a high degree of probability, shifting the burden to the opposing side to counter this evidence, which they failed to do.The Court also addressed the issue of limitation in inheritance cases and discussed the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act. It clarified that the benefit of postponing the limitation period is not applicable against bona fide purchasers. In this case, since the opposing side had purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration, the benefit of extending the limitation period was not available to the claimants.Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the revisional court's decision to dismiss the suit based on the grounds of limitation and failure to prove the asserted relationship. The Court determined that the revisional court's intervention was within its jurisdiction, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary: The matter involved a disagreement regarding the distribution of the assets of a deceased individual, the appellants, argued for a portion of the estate based on their status as consanguine siblings and asserted that the deceased followed a particular religious sect. The other side, termed the respondents, contested this claim by maintaining that the deceased adhered to a different religious sect.The origins of the case stemmed from an allocation of inheritance in favor of the respondents. However, the appellants challenged this allocation, leading to a legal process. The initial court's ruling favored the respondents, but the higher court overturned this decision, establishing that the deceased adhered to a specific religious sect. Following this, the respondents appealed to a further court, which dismissed the appellants' case on the basis of time limitation.The Supreme Court examined the principles of the burden of proof and presumptions concerning the religious affiliation of a deceased individual. It emphasized the role of evidence in civil cases and cited established norms that presumed a specific religious affiliation unless counter evidence was provided.Through a thorough evaluation of testimonies and documents, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the higher court, determining that the weight of evidence supported the appellants' assertion regarding the deceased's religious affiliation. The court also addressed the aspect of time limitation and concluded that the appellants' legal claim was indeed within the stipulated time frame.In light of this analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appellants' appeal, nullified the decision of the higher court, and reinstated the ruling of the said court, thereby granting the appellants a share of the estate.

Summary: Facts:The dispute revolved around a piece of land claimed by both parties. The petitioners claimed the land partly through inheritance from Muhammad Ibrahim and partly through sale. The respondent, Haji Abdul Fatah, relied on a Qabin-nama dated 29.6.1949 (Ex.P-3), which purportedly transferred the land as dower to Mst. Sahib Khatoon, from her second husband, Muhammad Raheem. The lower courts ruled in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the High Court of Balochistan.----Issue:Whether the Qabin-nama (Ex.P-3) was a valid and sufficient document to establish the respondent's claim over the disputed land, thereby nullifying the petitioners' claim based on inheritance and sale.---Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no reason to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts, which favored the respondent based on the Qabin-nama.----Reasoning:The Court noted that the Qabin-nama, being over 30 years old and originating from the respondent's custody, held statutory presumption of validity. The Court found no basis to doubt its authenticity, especially considering the admitted marital relationship between Muhammad Raheem and Mst. Sahib Khatoon, and the historical context of the document. The petitioners' claims, based on revenue records and inheritance, were deemed insufficient to override the clear evidence provided by the Qabin-nama.----Rule:The decision emphasizes the significance of ancient documents like the Qabin-nama in property disputes, especially when such documents have been preserved for over 30 years and originate from a party's custody, thereby attracting a presumption of authenticity and legality under the law.

Summary: In the legal analysis, it was stressed that three sisters, including one who had passed away, had initially sold their shares in the property to the appellant. Testimonies from family members supported the sale, but the challenging party, despite being alive, did not testify in person. Instead, her husband testified on her behalf as her attorney. The Court scrutinized this aspect, emphasizing that the challenging party's failure to testify and provide reasons for not doing so weakened her claim that she had not sold the land.Furthermore, the Court evaluated the legal principle that withholding the best evidence can lead to adverse presumptions, as outlined in Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The attorney for the challenging party's admission that the sale was due to financial need was deemed credible evidence. The Court also noted that the challenging party's husband, who was also her attorney, held a prominent local position, making it implausible that he was unaware of the sale.The Court invoked legal provisions, referring to the Evidence Act, 1872, specifically section 68, which mandates the presence of an attesting witness for document execution proof. Notably, the proviso to this section was highlighted, stating that an attesting witness need not be called if the execution is specifically denied. As the challenging party did not specifically deny the sale's execution, this proviso was applicable.Conclusively, the Court found that the sale was established through evidence, including the admission made by the challenging party's attorney. It criticized the High Court's decision to overturn the lower court's judgment based on the lack of established sale. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissing the challenging party's suit.

Summary: Background: The appellants and respondent both sought succession certificates under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925, to claim the pension and pensionary benefits of Abdul Khaliq, a deceased public servant. The respondent, being the widow of the deceased, filed for the certificate, while the appellants, who are distant relatives of the deceased, also filed a separate claim. The trial court dismissed the appellants' application and issued the succession certificate to the respondent (widow), granting her the right to receive the pension and other service-related benefits of the deceased. -----Issues: 1- Whether the pension and pensionary benefits of the deceased form part of his "tarka" (estate) and can be claimed by distant relatives under Islamic inheritance law. -----2- Whether the widow of the deceased has exclusive rights to the pension and related benefits. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that pension and pensionary benefits do not constitute "tarka" or heritable property under Islamic law. Citing precedents, the court reasoned that these benefits are governed by specific statutes or rules and are not considered part of the deceased’s estate. Therefore, these benefits are to be granted to the next-of-kin as prescribed by the relevant laws and rules, which in this case was the widow. The court relied on the precedent that pension benefits are not subject to inheritance laws, but rather they cease upon the pensioner's death. After death, these benefits are treated as a grant to the family of the deceased according to the governing statutes. As such, the appellants, being distant relatives, had no right to claim a share in these benefits. The court dismissed the appellants' claims and upheld the trial court's decision to grant the succession certificate to the widow of the deceased, as she was the legitimate next-of-kin according to the governing laws. -----Citations/Precedents: Mrs. Hina Mumtaz Soomro and others v. Abdul Sami Soomro and others (PLD 2018 Sindh 671) – Pension does not form part of the heritable estate of a deceased individual. Wafaqi Hakoomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas (PLD 1991 SC 731) – Pension ceases upon the death of the pensioner and is governed by statutory provisions for the benefit of the next-of-kin. Dr. Safdar Hussain and another v. Flt. Lt. Nadia Latif and others (2014 YLR 1553) – Pension and benefits that accrue after death are treated as grants and are not part of the deceased's estate.

Summary: The case involved a dispute over the inheritance of the estate of Habib Khan, who had multiple marriages and eight daughters. Some of the daughters filed a suit to claim their rightful inheritance according to Islamic Shari?ah, as they were denied their share by their step-mother and her two children from a previous marriage, who were not legal heirs of Habib Khan. The contesting respondents relied on two documents, a Meharnama (dower deed) dated 12 May 1971 and a Razinama (compromise) dated 13 June 2004, to claim the entire estate of Habib Khan.The appellants contended that the Meharnama was a self-serving document, allegedly manufactured to deprive them of their inheritance. They argued that two of the attesting witnesses to the Meharnama were minors at the time, casting doubts on its authenticity. They also challenged the Razinama, stating that it was not signed by any legal heir of Habib Khan and was not mentioned in the Meharnama.After examining the documents and the arguments presented, the Supreme Court concluded that the Meharnama was not established as genuine and could not be relied upon to deprive the legal heirs of their inheritance. Similarly, the execution of the Razinama was not proven, and it could not be imposed on the heirs arbitrarily. The Court also held that the suit was not time-barred under Islamic Shari?ah, as heirs become owners of their predecessor's property immediately upon his death.As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the three concurrent judgments, and decreed the suit in favor of the appellants. The entire estate of Habib Khan was ordered to be distributed among his legal heirs in accordance with the shares prescribed by Islamic Shari?ah. The Court emphasized the prompt implementation of the judgment, considering the long period during which the legal heirs were deprived of their inheritance.