Summary: The case involved a suit filed by the respondents, claiming to be legal heirs of late Ali Ahmed, for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession of a disputed property. They alleged that the appellants fraudulently mutated the property and prayed for correction of the entries. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, but the Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the appellants and dismissed the suit. The High Court accepted the respondents' revision petition and set aside the Appellate Court's judgment, restoring the trial court's judgment.The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments from both parties and examining the record, found that the respondents failed to prove their case. The witnesses produced by the respondents did not confirm the contents of the plaint, and no documentary or oral evidence was presented to establish the ownership of late Ali Ahmed over the disputed property. On the other hand, the appellants claimed that the property was gifted to them in lieu of religious services, and their evidence was found to be of higher quality than that of the respondents.The Court further noted that the issue of limitation was not decided correctly by the High Court. The suit, filed in 2012, challenged the revenue record prepared in 1977-78, and the cause of action for the respondents accrued at that time. As the suit was filed after such a long period without any explanation, it was barred by time. However, the High Court wrongly decided the issue of limitation in favor of the respondents.Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the High Court, and restoring the Appellate Court's judgment with the above modification.

Summary: Gift Mutation by deceased father in favour of minor son executed 25 years ago and not questioned for 11 years in the life time of the said deceased father was validly attested. Fraud was not proved.

Summary: scope of Section 373 of Succession Act, 1925

Summary: (Applicability of law of limitation in inheritance cases---six-year period of limitation provided by Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to suits for declaration of ownership rights) The facts of the case state that Isa Khan, the original owner of the land, died and his inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favor of his son Abdur Rehman. Later, a portion of the land was acquired by the Small Industries Corporation, and Abdur Rehman received compensation for it. After Abdur Rehman's death, his sons, daughters, and widow inherited the remaining land. Subsequently, they sold parts of the land to other individuals. The petitioners filed a suit in 2004, claiming that the inheritance mutation and subsequent transfers were void and ineffective against their rights. They alleged that Abdur Rehman fraudulently excluded his sisters from the inheritance and that they were the rightful owners of the land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, but the appellate court reversed the decision, citing issues of limitation. The High Court, upon considering the cause of action, estoppel, and limitation, upheld the appellate court's decision. The petitioners challenged the findings of the appellate court and the High Court on the issue of limitation, arguing that the limitation does not apply to cases of inheritance. The Supreme Court examined the relevant judgments and determined that the six-year period of limitation provided by Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to suits for declaration of ownership rights, including those related to inheritance. The right to sue accrues when the defendant denies or threatens to deny the plaintiff's rights. In the case of co-sharers, the actual denial of rights by one co-sharer to another is not easily inferred, and there are specific obligations and fiduciary relationships between co-sharers, especially in the context of Islamic law and jurisprudence. Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court found no conflict among the judgments cited and concluded that the appellate court and the High Court correctly applied the bar of limitation in the case. Therefore, the petitioners' request for leave to appeal was denied.

Summary: Not every transfer in favour of a legal heir is void depriving the female legal heirs of the deceased.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4, 5 & 7---Inheritance---Father’s estate---Complainant (daughter) sought her share in immovable and movable properties of her deceased father, including house, vehicle, and bank account---Respondents (sister and others) proceeded ex-parte---Revenue, CDA, Excise & Taxation, and bank records confirmed ownership of house and vehicle in father’s name—Held, both sisters being legal heirs are entitled to equal shares in the inherited estate. (b) Civil proceedings---Effect of withdrawal of prior civil suit ----Complainant had earlier filed and withdrawn civil suit with liberty to file afresh—Such withdrawal did not bar jurisdiction of Ombudsman to redress deprivation of ownership or possession under the Act, particularly where official records substantiated her ownership claim. (c) Inherited property---Scope of restoration under the Act ----Ombudsman empowered under sections 4 & 5 to direct restoration or conferment of possession and title of inherited property where a woman is unlawfully deprived by relatives—Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, directed to ensure transfer and possession of the built-up house in favour of complainant according to her Sharia share. (d) Movable property---Distribution of vehicle and bank account ----Vehicle (Suzuki Cultus, Reg. No. ABZ-951) registered in father’s name declared part of inheritance—Excise & Taxation Department directed to seize and auction the vehicle, dividing proceeds equally between both sisters—As to joint bank account held in father’s and respondent’s name, no evidence of fraud or misappropriation; hence, no relief granted. (e) Disposition — Complaint partly allowed. Deputy Commissioner Islamabad directed to restore title and possession of house No. 304-G, Street 30, Sector F-11/2, Islamabad, to complainant and respondent according to their legal shares; Excise & Taxation Department to sell vehicle and distribute proceeds equally; no interference in bank account.

Summary: The dispute revolved around the inheritance of a property, and the petitioners claimed that the property was wrongly transferred to the respondents through a Gift Deed. They filed a suit for declaration that the Gift Deed was void and sought an injunction against interference with their rights over the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners. However, the High Court accepted the respondents' revision and set aside the appellate court's judgment.The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the High Court erred in concluding that the suit for declaration was not maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The court clarified that if a document is void, a suit for declaration under section 42 is competent. The respondents failed to prove the due execution and registration of the Gift Deed, and their claim of equitable distribution of property was not supported by evidence. Additionally, the court upheld that the suit was filed within the statutory period, thus not time-barred.Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed Civil Petition No. 2144-L of 2011, converted it into an appeal, and upheld the judgment of the appellate court. Similarly, Civil Appeal No. 1-L of 2012 was also allowed. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the judgment of the appellate court was maintained.

Summary: 'All the settlement process and mutation entries carried out in the settlement without inclusion of the names of female legal heirs shall stand cancelled and in future any such exclusion or elimination with regard to female shareholder in the legacy of her/their deceased predecessor shall be curbed with iron hands by means of registering criminal cases against the offenders and case in this behalf shall be registered on behalf of the concerned revenue officials instead of complaining women with further directions to the DG NADRA and DG Public Relations, Govt. of Balochistan.''----Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Inheritance---Protection of women's right ofinheritance---Prohibition of depriving woman from inheriting property---Scope---Petitionerfiled constitutional petition with the assertion that the process of settlement was initiated inthe different parts of the province and during such process, the property was being settledand mutated only in the name of male members, whereas, the names of females were notbeing provided/supplied to the revenue authorities nor the revenue authorities were makingefforts to get the names of the female shareholders---Validity---Perusal of the reply filed bythe Provincial Government revealed that no mechanism was drawn in the pre-settlementprocess---Though the publication was being made in the newspapers prior to carrying out themutation of inheritance, but the same was not enough, as firstly the newspapers were notsupplied and circulated in the far flung areas of the province and secondly the womenfolkbeing illiterate either did not have excess to the newspaper or being illiterate were unable toread and understand the same---Mere publication in the newspapers was not enough to invitethe shareholders or to draw their attention, rather concrete steps were required to be taken bythe Revenue Authorities to ensure that no female shareholder was deprived from her right ofinheritance or her name was not excluded from the settlement process or mutations carriedthereon---High Court observed that it would be good enough to take the NADRA authorities(National Database and Registration Authority) on board prior to carrying out the process ofinheritance and the family tree of the deceased, whenever felt necessary, be obtained fromthe NADRA authorities and after assuring and confirming the number and names of the legalheirs of the deceased, the further process be carried out---High Court while accepting thepetition issued certain directions to the official respondents.Following directions were issued by the High Court while accepting the petition:I. The rights of women are being protected by the Holy Quran, which cannot be denied,thus, they are entitled to be given their/her right from the legacy of their/her deceasedpredecessor.II. No mutation process of inheritance be carried out without transferring the propertyfirstly in the name of all shareholders including female(s) and any property beingtransferred/mutated by concealling or excluding the name(s) of female(s) shareholder(s), theentire process would be treated as null and void, and liable to be reversed without evenapproaching the court of civil jurisdiction.III. No female shareholder can be deprived from her right on basis of relinquishment/giftdeed, bridal gift, maintenance allowance, payment of some cash for any erroneousconsideration, force, or for any other means, whatsoever high it may be, other than right ofinheritance in the legacy/property of her/their deceased predecessor. In case of any suchreason stated hereinabove or leading to deprivation of female shareholder from her right ofinheritances, the entire process would stand null and void.IV. No Process of settlement is to be carried out anywhere in the province, unless it is assured that the name of female shareholders are provided and are included in the process,and in case, there is no female in the family, the Revenue Authorities must specificallymention the relevant details in this behalf.V. The Secretary/Senior Member Board of Revenue shall ensure and direct his subordinate revenue/settlement officials that before starting the settlement operation in any areaof the province, the leaflet/handbill duly written in Urdu and local language of the respectivearea shall be distributed in the girls' schools/colleges, hospitals and door to door by deputinga lady constable and if not available the lady teacher or midwife/nurse of the respective basichealth unit (BHU)/District Head Quarter Hospital (DHQH).VI. The respective Deputy Commissioners shall also be directed to arrange theannouncement in Urdu and local language of the respective area on loudspeaker in theMasjids/Madrasas, followed by beat of drum in the streets/vicinities, within the precincts ofthe targeted area(s) of settlement operation.VII.The DG NADRA is directed to establish an on call special desk facilities at therevenue office of the relevant District/Tehsil for provision of family tree of the deceased,whose property is either likely to be inherited or to be settled during the settlement operationto ensure inclusion of name(s) of female legal heir(s) of any deceased either male or female.VIII. The DG NADRA is also directed to ensure that wherever the female legal heir aftergetting marriage is or has been included in the family tree of her husband, throughregistration track system (RTS), the origin of her father's family shall also be ascertained toavoid any deprivation of legal right.IX. The Secretary, Member Board of Revenue is directed to convene a meeting with theDG NADRA for evolving a comprehensive mechanism for avoiding unnecessary delay forprovision of family tree of the deceased and till establishment of special facility at therevenue offices, an interim procedure shall be devised to achieve the objects of thisjudgment.X. The Secretary, Member Board of Revenue is further directed to constitute a complaintcell at the Revenue Office(s) supervised by an officer not below the rank of AdditionalSecretary, to avoid any unnecessary delay in the process of inheritance as well as in thesettlement operation and also to eradicate the possibility of illegal gratification.XI. The Member Board of Revenue and his all sub-ordinate officials are strictly directedthat in case of any complaint with regard to deprivation of any female legal heir(s) a legalaction shall be initiated against the wrong doers by registering a criminal case under theprovision of section 498-A, P.P.C. While for this purpose no female shall be compelledeither to withdraw from her claim or to force her to initiate a criminal proceeding on herown, rather, it would be the duty of the concerned revenue official to lodge a criminal case.XII.All civil suits relating to inheritance pending before the Civil Court are directed to bedecided within three months from receipt of this judgment and such period in no case shallexceed six months, from today, whereas, if any suit is newly instituted, the same beregistered as Inheritance Suit/appeal/revision/ petition and be decided within three monthswithout extension of further time. All the appeals and revisions pending before the AppellateCourt and Revisional Courts are directed to be decided within one month preferably, but notlater than two (02) months. The Member Inspection Team of this court shall circulate acircular and ensure that these directions are followed in letter and spirit within stipulatedtime.XIII. The Registrar of this Court is directed that if any complaint is received by any aggrieved person against any revenue/settlement official or by any private individual withregard to deprivation of female legal heir either in case of inheritance or settlementoperation, the same be immediately placed before us for our perusal in chamber and afterpassing an appropriate direction same shall immediately be transmitted to Senior MemberBoard of Revenue for information and compliance.XIV. Any application/complaint filed with regard to issue decided in this judgment shallbe treated as an execution application, which after entering as a Civil MiscellaneousApplication shall be proceeded accordingly either under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,(C.P.C.) or The Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, and as a criminal complaint undersection 200, Cr.P.C.Verses 1, 2, 7, 11 and 12 of Surah An-Nisa (4); Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst.Nuzba Shaheen and others 2021 SCMR 179; Mst. Brikhna v. Faiz Ullah Khan and others2020 SCMR 1618; Taleh Bibi and others v. Maqsooda Bibi and others 1997 SCMR 459;Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi and others PLD 1990 SC 1 and R.F.A.No.40 of 2011 rel.

Summary: The case involved a dispute over inheritance as per the Islamic law of inheritance (Shari'ah) in the estate of the late Muhammad Yar. The respondent, Mst. Razia Begum, claimed her inheritance rights.The petitioners argued that the High Court had set aside the concurrent judgments of the subordinate courts lightly and without proper appreciation of the evidence. They claimed that the suit was time-barred, and the respondent relied on a document showing the date of death of Muhammad Yar as 15 May 1986, which was not part of her pleadings. The petitioners contended that their father was alive when a gift was made on 27 July 1986, and he died on 28 May 1999.However, the Court examined the evidence and found discrepancies in the gift mutation document and witness testimonies regarding the gift. The Court accepted the death certificate produced by the respondent, which indicated that Muhammad Yar died on 15 May 1986. Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the gift mutation was made after the death of Muhammad Yar and, therefore, invalid.The Court highlighted the importance of protecting female heirs' inheritance rights in accordance with Islamic law and noted the continued deprivation of these rights. It emphasized that the Principles of Policy in the Constitution aim to protect the vulnerable and ensure the well-being of all citizens. The Court lamented the lack of effective measures to safeguard female inheritance rights and urged the State to take necessary actions to address this issue.In conclusion, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, canceled the gift mutation, and directed the concerned department to prepare the inheritance mutation in accordance with Islamic law. The Court dismissed the petition with costs payable by the petitioners to the respondent.

Summary: PLJ 2021 Quetta 24 (DB) Present Mrs Syeda Tahira Safdar CJ and Muhammad Ejaz Swati J HAWA BEGUM - - Petitioner versus NAIK BAKHT and 13 others - - Respondents CP No 1 of 2014 and RFA No 22 of 2017 decided on 172019 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Death during service in bumb blast - - Announcement of compensation of package - Issuance of succession certificate - - Application for - - Grant of revised succession certificate for separating shares of parents of deceased - - Settlement during pendency of application - - Application was allowed - - Challenge through application - - Dismissed - - Appeal - - Dismissed - - Suit for declaration for recovery - - Decreed - - Issuance of revised succession certificate - - Challenge to - - It is settled principle of law of inheritance that co - sharership is result of devolution of inheritance co - sharer becomes co - sharer moment inheritance open even mutation of entries or share in movable property also not necessary - - Deceased was issueless therefore parent ie Respondents Nos 1 and 2 who were living with deceased and were dependent therefore as held in PLD 2013 Peshawar 1 included in family - - In instant case in this respect order was passed by trial Court pursuant to succession certificates with consent of both parties and thereafter separate certificate were issued respectively - - Petitioner has only assailed one order but another order has not been assailed which had taken finality hence impugned order arising out of CP No 01 of 2014 warrants no interference - - Findings of trial Court with regard to salary of deceased received by petitioner to extent of her share during subsistence of second marriage is intact - - Petition was dismissed [Pp 30 31] A B C PLD 2013 Pesh 1 Nemo for Petitioner (in CP No 1 of 2014) Mr Farooq Anwar Advocate for Respondents Nos 1 to 11 (in CP No 1 of 2014) Mr Zahoor Ahmed Baloch Assistant AG for Official Respondents (in CP No 1 of 2014) Mr Khushal Khan Kasi Advocate for Appellant (in RFA No 22 of 2017) Mr Farooq Anwar Advocate for Respondents Nos 1 and 2 (in RFA No 22 of 2017) Mr Zahoor Ahmed Baloch Assistant AG for Official Respondents (in RFA No 22 of 2017)Judgement Result:Petition dismissed