Summary: The dispute centers around the inheritance of the estate of Taj Din alias Tajoo, who died without leaving any direct descendants, and the respondent, Mst. Niamat Bibi, claimed to be his sole sister and sought to inherit his estate.The appellant, Muhammad Sharif, contested the respondent's claim, arguing that he was the grandson of Taj Din's collateral, Tongal, and, as such, should inherit the remaining half of Taj Din's estate as a collateral consanguine male residuary. He based his claim on a fatwa (religious ruling) and a pedigree table that he presented as evidence.The Supreme Court reviewed the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, which had decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and upheld the Appellate Court's decision. The Court found that the appellant failed to establish his connection to Taj Din and, therefore, could not inherit from him. The fatwa and pedigree table presented by the appellant did not prove his relationship to Taj Din and were deemed irrelevant to determine his inheritance rights.Additionally, the Court referred to a previous judgment (Saadullah v Gulbanda) that stated a full sister would inherit both as a sister and as a residuary if there were no other heirs in the specified categories mentioned in the judgment. The appellant, being in the category of "Consanguine Paternal Uncle's Son," could not inherit from Taj Din in the presence of his full sister (Majeedan), who was entitled to the residue.As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and upheld the respondent's right to inherit the estate of Taj Din, emphasizing that the dispute between the parties was complex and, therefore, made no order as to costs.

Summary: In this case, Muhammad Farrukh Iqbal filed two civil petitions challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the Islamabad High Court acting as the Appellate Court. The dispute revolved around the ownership of House No. 18 situated in Sector F-6/2, Islamabad. Mrs. Ayesha Iram claimed her right to inheritance in the house, stating that it belonged to her late father, Col. Muhammad Safdar Iqbal, who died in December 2000, and as his legal heir, she had a share in it.Muhammad Farrukh Iqbal, on the other hand, asserted that the house was gifted to him by his father through a "Declaration of Oral Gift" document dated 2nd September 2000. He argued that the document was valid and witnessed by two individuals, Shahid Ghani Mughal and the late Farrukh Saeed Qureshi. However, Farrukh Saeed Qureshi's death was confirmed through a death certificate.The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the gift document was not registered as required by law for gifts of immovable property. As per Section 17(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, gifts of immovable property made through written documents must be registered. Additionally, the document did not have the necessary signature or thumb impression of the donor on the first page, casting doubts on its authenticity.The Court rejected the claim that the gift was made orally and held that the gift document itself purportedly transferred ownership of the house. As it was not registered, it could not be used to transfer the property to Muhammad Farrukh Iqbal.Based on these reasons, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed both civil petitions.

Summary: Suit for possession with consequential relief of cancellation of mutations was rightly dismissed by Trial Court and erroneously decreed by Appellate Court. Respondent could not prove her claim of inheritance as she was not the legal heir of deceased. Pleadings must be read in entirety and not in isolation to ascertain 'admission'. Where determination of legal heir of the deceased is in issue, limitation is a relevant consideration.

Summary: The status of legal heirs must be proved before determination of share of inheritance---The petitioner, Muhammad Bashir, claimed that the land belonged to Salehon, who died issueless, and that the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 (Irshad Bibi) were the only legal heirs entitled to inherit the property. The respondents (Irshad Begum and others) contested this claim, asserting that Salehon was married to Irshad Begum, and Respondent No. 2 (Sidra Batool) was their daughter. The judgment discusses the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties, highlighting contradictions in their statements and discrepancies in documents such as CNICs, Nikah Nama, Birth Certificate, and School Leaving Certificate. The court found that the respondents' evidence lacked consistency and failed to prove their relationship with Salehon as claimed. The court also criticized the reliance on documents by the Appellate Court, emphasizing that if the contents of the documents contradict each other and the oral evidence, they cannot be relied upon. Additionally, the court noted that important documents, like Nikah Nama, were not properly proved. In conclusion, the court set aside the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, emphasizing that the respondents failed to establish their relationship with Salehon. The judgment also addressed procedural issues related to the timeliness of the revision petition, arguing that it was not time-barred.

Summary: The case involved disputes over mutations and gifts regarding property inheritance. The respondent, Khuda Bukhsh, and others challenged the validity of mutation No. 334 dated 10.04.1998 and an order dated 09.02.1998, which cancelled mutations of gifts. The respondents claimed that the mutations were cancelled incorrectly and without jurisdiction. The petitioner contested the suits, denying the claims and seeking dismissal. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, prompting the petitioner to file appeals, which were subsequently dismissed. Dissatisfied with the outcomes, the petitioner filed revision petitions. The judgment reflected on Islamic principles of inheritance and highlighted the constitutional protections afforded to women and children. It criticized the deprivation of inheritance rights from females and emphasized the obligation of state organs and authorities to act in accordance with constitutional principles. The court referred to legal precedents, including Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another (2021 SCMR 179), and Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (2021 SCMR 73), to underscore the importance of expeditiously deciding claims of inheritance deprivation. Examining the evidence, the court found that the respondents failed to prove the validity of the alleged gifts and mutations. The vague pleadings raised doubts about the events of the purported gifts. It concluded that the lower courts had failed to appreciate the facts and committed legal errors. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petitions, dismissed the suits titled "Khuda Bukhsh v. Allah Wasai, etc." and "Nasir Ali, etc. v. Allah Wasai, etc." for declaration, and awarded costs to the petitioner throughout.

Summary: The appellant, challenged an order related to the application for Success Certificate and Letters of Administration filed by the legal heirs of deceased Shaheen Liaquat. The deceased's properties included an immovable property in Karachi and Bahbood Saving Certificates. The appellant contested the valuation of the immovable property, which was determined by the IX-Additional District Judge at Rs. 1,50,00,000, arguing that it was based on presumption.The appellant's counsel claimed that the court did not consider the request for property evaluation through an estate agent and provided a new valuation of Rs. 10 Million by Habib Associates. The High Court, noting the lack of evidence for the higher valuation, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the IX-Additional District Judge Karachi South for a proper determination of the property's value. The court emphasized the need for an appropriate procedure to ascertain the actual value and allowed the appeal accordingly.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit claiming a share in the compensation amount of Rs. 2,000,000, which was granted by the Government of Balochistan to the legal heirs of Din Muhammad, who was martyred in a traffic accident while serving in the Balochistan Traffic Police. The petitioner, being the deceased's brother, claimed entitlement to a portion of the compensation. The respondents (the widow and other family members) had already obtained a succession certificate without including the petitioner. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting him a share. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the present revision petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the compensation amount granted by the government qualifies as "tarka" (inheritance) and should be distributed among all legal heirs, including the petitioner. -----2- Whether the widow and other respondents were correct in claiming the compensation amount without including the petitioner. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the compensation amount granted by the government does not qualify as tarka (inheritance). Referring to established precedents, the court explained that tarka consists of assets and property that the deceased owned or had a legal right to claim during his lifetime. Since the compensation was awarded posthumously by the government as a grant and not something the deceased owned or controlled, it does not form part of his estate. Thus, the petitioner could not claim a share in the compensation as a matter of inheritance under Islamic law. The court relied on multiple precedents, including the rulings of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court and the Lahore High Court, to establish that posthumous benefits like compensation or grants are not subject to inheritance laws. These benefits are paid to nominees or next-of-kin as per the relevant statutes and cannot be considered part of the deceased’s estate (tarka). The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the appellate court’s decision that the compensation amount does not constitute tarka and thus cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a legitimate right. -----Citations/Precedents: Wafaqi Hakoomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas (PLD 1991 SC 731) – Compensation and grants provided posthumously do not form part of tarka. Wafaqi Hakoomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas (PLD 1991 SC 750) – Compensation is a form of sympathy or grant, not subject to inheritance laws. Dr. Safdar Hussain and another v. Flt. Lt. Nadia Latif and others (2014 YLR 1553) – Clarified the distinction between assets constituting tarka and posthumous grants or compensations, which are not part of the estate.

Summary: Sections of law; Section 115 CPC(a)Plea of adverse possession cannot be allowed to be raised by a co-sharer who claims acquisition of such a status by way of inheritance.

Summary: Facts: Mst. Munir Sultan, the daughter of Fateh Khan from his first marriage, filed a suit claiming her Shariah-based inheritance from her father's estate. She challenged three gift mutations made by Fateh Khan in favor of his second wife and their two sons, which transferred all his land to them, excluding her and her four step-sisters. The suit was initially dismissed, but on appeal, both the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court ruled in her favor, recognizing her right to inheritance.----Issue(s):Whether the gift mutations made by Fateh Khan in favor of his second wife and sons were valid and legally binding.Whether Mst. Munir Sultan, as a daughter, was entitled to her share of inheritance under Shariah law.Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the judgments of the lower courts that favored Mst. Munir Sultan's claim to her inheritance. The Court found the gift mutations suspect and not adequately proven by the petitioners.----Reasoning:The Court noted discrepancies in the gift mutations, such as the absence of detailed information about the gifts, the lack of signatures or thumb impressions by Fateh Khan, and the failure of the petitioners to prove the gifts conclusively.The Court highlighted the suspicious circumstances under which the gifts were made, considering Fateh Khan's advanced age and poor health, raising doubts about his state of mind and intention to disinherit five of his daughters.The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to Shariah law regarding inheritance, particularly the rights of female heirs, and criticized the practice of depriving legal heirs of their rightful shares through questionable transactions like the disputed gift mutations.The Court also criticized the Revenue department for its role in facilitating such dubious transactions and called for improvements in record-keeping and adherence to legal requirements to prevent similar cases of injustice.----Judgment: The petition for leave to appeal was declined, and the petition was dismissed. The Court imposed costs on the petitioners for depriving the legal heirs of their inheritance for 22 years and urged them to comply with the laws of inheritance.

Summary: Facts:The respondents, the daughter and widow of the late Mansab Khan, were denied their inheritance in his estate due to an alleged gift of land to his nephews (petitioners).After challenging the gift, the respondents won the suit at the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court and the High Court, despite the petitioners' appeals.----Issue:Whether the gift claimed by the petitioners, to the detriment of the rightful heirs (respondents), was valid and could override the respondents' inheritance rights.Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts in favor of the respondents and against the petitioners.----Reasoning:The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish the validity of the alleged gift. Two of the donees were minors, and the third, an adult, did not testify to receiving the gift.The Court criticized the petitioners for attempting to deprive the vulnerable respondents of their inheritance, highlighting the societal and legal importance of protecting inheritance rights, especially for widows and orphans.The Court referenced Islamic principles and Pakistani constitutional protections for property and family, condemning actions that deprive family members of their legal inheritance rights.----Order:The petition was dismissed with costs payable to the respondents. The Court ordered the Trial/Executing Court to ensure prompt compliance with the judgment, ensuring the respondents receive their rightful inheritance.-----Key Quotes:"It is most unfortunate that rather than supporting the widow and her daughter in the hour of their greatest need their relatives, the petitioners, turned into predators to deprive them of their rightful inheritance...""An heir inherits property to the extent of his/her share the very moment his/her predecessor passes away...""Violating the law of inheritance, which in the case of Muslims is the shariah, and exploiting the most vulnerable members of society is wholly unacceptable."