Summary: Background:Mst. Chanani Segura filed a suit seeking the cancellation of mutation entries and claiming her share in the property of her deceased sister, Mst. Anwar Sultan, on the grounds that Mst. Anwar Sultan was a Sunni Muslim, not Shia as claimed. The trial court ruled in favor of Mst. Chanani Segura, but the appellate court reversed the decision, which was upheld by the High Court. This appeal challenges the High Court's decision.---Issues:Whether the deceased's previous statement declaring herself to be Shia was admissible evidence.Whether there was sufficient evidence to determine the faith of the deceased.Whether there is an initial presumption of Sunni faith in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the deceased's voluntary declaration of her faith in previous proceedings was admissible evidence to determine her faith. Such a declaration, even if made in a different context, holds persuasive value and is not subject to challenge. The court emphasized the personal nature of faith and the validity of such declarations after the person's death. Additionally, while there may be an initial presumption of Sunni faith in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent due to the majority population, this presumption is rebuttable and must be determined based on surrounding circumstances and evidence. Therefore, the court concluded that the High Court's decision was justified, and the appeal was dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Pathana versus Mst. Wasai and another (PLD 1965 SC 134)Mst. Ghulam Ayesha alias Ilyas Seguin vs. Sardar Sher Khan (PLJ 2006 SC 1476)Muhammad Bashir vs. Latifa Bibi (2010 SCMR 1915)

Summary: (a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)-------S.41---Transfer by ostensible owner---Scope---Inheritance---Gift---Ingredients---Proof---Mutation---Co-sharer---Bona fide purchaser---Contention of plaintiff was that she was ownerof suit property and impugned mutations were illegal whereas defendants contended that suitproperty had been transferred in their favour through gift---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Limitation did not run against a void transaction nor efflux of time couldextinguish right of inheritance---Mutation was not a proof of title and beneficiary was boundto prove original transaction---Once it was established that plaintiff was entitled forinheritance then she would become co-sharer in each and every inch of the property ofdeceased predecessor---Plaintiff was entitled to inherit the left-over of her deceased father asshe had become co-sharer in the property on death of her father to the extent of her share---Co-sharers could not alienate the property more than their shares---Each co-sharer would bedeemed to be owner in joint property and anyone of them could not act against rights andliabilities of other co-sharers---Donee excluding any heir from inheritance was required toestablish the original transaction of gift---Nothing was on record with regard to declarationof gift or its acceptance---Mere transfer of possession to the donee was not sufficient toconstitute a valid gift---Gift deed must justify the disinheritance of an heir which in thepresent case was lacking---Transfer of property should be for consideration and transfereemust have acted in good faith taking reasonable care to ascertain that transferor had thepower to transfer the property---Subsequent purchaser of suit property had not taken care ofimportant aspect of the matter---Right of transferee should be protected from the share ofdefendants and not from the share of plaintiff---Principle of bona fide purchaser was basedon equity which could not be invoked in such a manner that might cause injustice to theothers---Vendees of suit property should claim their right, if any, from their transferorsdefendants---Plaintiff being residuary of deceased should inherit from his property underLaw of Sharia---Impugned judgments and decrees were based on correct appreciation ofrecord---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.Peer Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others 2016 SCMR 1417; MuhammadIqbal v. Mukhtar Ahmed 2008 SCMR 855; Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani 1992SCMR 1832; Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2002 SCMR 1938; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail 2018 SCMR 139 and Muhammad Shamim v. Mst. Nisar Fatima 2010SCMR 18 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope.Concurrent findings of fact and law arrived at by two courts below can only bedisturbed, if Court comes to the conclusion that the same are illegal, unlawful based onmisapplication of relevant provisions of law; shocking; perverse; artificial and; fanciful.High Court could not go behind concurrent findings of fact, unless it can be shown that thefinding is on the face of it against the evidence or so patently improbable, or perverse that toaccept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice, or if there has been anymisapplication or principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally, if the finding couldbe demonstrated to be physically impossible.Syed Hussain Naqvi and others v. Mst. Begum Zakara Chatha and others 2015 SCMR1081 rel.(c) Limitation-------Limitation did not run against a void transaction.

Summary: Suit filed by Bank was decreed and judgment debtor resisted execution of decree on grounds that property in question through inheritance from her husband which property could not be put to auction. Judgment debtor was trying to frustrate entire execution proceedings and any indulgence at such stage of proceedings could amount to frustrate implementation of decree which otherwise had attained finality. Interference, at such stage, could tantamount to interference in already decided matter which culminated by dismissal of objection petition filed by husband of judgment debtor------Claim of judgment debtor that transfer of property in her name through inheritance of her husband gave her fresh cause of action was without any basis and legal justification----Judgment debtor had stepped into shoes of her husband and could not claim better title or rights in property than her husband and such claim, being without any merit was repelled.

Summary: Background:Nawab Khan died in 1932, leaving behind his son, Faqir Ahmed, and daughter, Romaan Sheda, as his heirs, along with 600 kanals of agricultural land.Romaan Sheda got married but her husband died within a year, and she returned to live with her brother, Faqir Ahmed.Romaan Sheda died in 1990, and her daughter Zakia died in 2006.Zakia's heirs filed a suit in 2007, claiming a share in the 600 kanals of land inherited from her mother, Romaan Sheda.---Issues:Whether the heirs of Zakia are entitled to a share in the land inherited from Romaan Sheda.The validity of customary law in determining inheritance rights.---Holding/Reasoning:The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of Zakia's heirs, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision.The appellant argues that under customary law, Faqir Ahmed inherited the entire 600 kanals, but the court disagrees.The court examines the validity of customary law in light of the NWFP Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935. This act repealed the customary law and revived Muslim Personal Law for Muslims.Section 3(2) of the 1935 Act states that the rule of decision in succession cases for Muslims shall be according to Muslim Personal Law.Since Romaan Sheda and Zakia did not claim their share during their lifetimes, their right to inheritance passed on to their heirs.Under Muslim Personal Law, Romaan Sheda was entitled to a 1/3rd share, which would then be divided between her daughter Zakia and brother Faqir Ahmed.The court concludes that Zakia's heirs are entitled to 50% of the land, and Faqir Ahmed's share is reduced accordingly.---Conclusion:The appeal is dismissed, and Zakia's heirs are entitled to 50% of the land inherited from Romaan Sheda, with the remaining 50% going to Faqir Ahmed.

Summary: Background:Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat, the respondent, inherited land measuring 2722-Kanal 12 Marla from her father's estate as a minor. Upon her return from the United States in 1989, she discovered that her share of the land had been unlawfully mutated in favor of her nephew when she was still a minor. The appellants, claiming to be bona fide purchasers, contested her claim to the land.---Issues:Whether the mutation of the land in favor of the nephew when both parties were minors was valid.Whether the appellants, as innocent purchasers, should be held responsible for the wrongful transaction.Whether the respondent's claim to the land was maintainable despite her being out of physical possession.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the mutation of the land in favor of the nephew when both parties were minors was void ab initio. The court emphasized that Ms. Khilat's entitlement to the land, as a female heir in a Muslim household, was protected by law. The court also noted procedural irregularities in the mutation process, rendering it invalid. The appellants' argument that they should not be held responsible for the wrongful transaction was rejected, citing the principle of caveat emptor. The court further held that the respondent's claim to the land was maintainable, as she was deemed to be in possession as a co-sharer in the estate. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the decision of the High Court was upheld.---Citations/Precedents:Fazal Ellahi deceased through legal heirs Vs. Mst. Zainab Bi (2019 SCMR 1930)Khan Muhammad through LRs & others Vs. Mst. Khatoon Bibi & others (2017 SCMR 1476)Mahmood Khan Vs. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah (2015 SCMR 869)Mst. Gohar Khanum Vs. Mst. Jamila Jan (2014 SCMR 801)Rehmat Ullah & others Vs. Saleh Khan & others (2007 SCMR 729)Arshad Khan Vs. Resham Jan and others (2005 SCMR 1859)Ghulam Ali & 2 other Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1)

Summary: Impact of section 2A of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application, 1962, on customary laws---The judgment relies on legal provisions such as Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, which has a retrospective effect and impacts the inheritance of agricultural land acquired under custom. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the courts below correctly decided the case based on Section 3 of the Act, but the judgment focuses on the applicability of Section 2-A and concludes that the dispute has lost significance due to this legal provision. The court emphasized that the enforceability of Section 2-A, having a retrospective effect, is a pure question of law.

Summary: After termination of lease legal heirs of lessee are not entitled to inherit the tenancy---The petitioners, successors of the original lessee under the Horse Breeding Scheme, argue that they are entitled to the renewal of the lease under the 1934 scheme, while the respondents claim that a new policy from 1983 is applicable. The historical context involved successive leases, deaths of lessees, and renewals until 2004. The petitioners executed a new lease agreement in 1996 under the 1983 scheme, valid until 2004. Despite pending renewal applications, the lease was allegedly renewed in 2004 and 2005 but was later revoked in 2006. Legal battles ensued, leading to the impugned order in 2019 denying lease renewal. The petitioners argued for the applicability of Clause 16 of the 1934 scheme, asserting that the 1983 scheme is not relevant. They challenge the impugned order, citing lack of notice, improper procedure, and the illegality of the order. The respondents counter that the 1983 scheme, with a non-renewable tenancy clause, governs, and the petitioners' lease expired in 2004, rendering them illegal occupants. The court examined the legal aspects, emphasizing the binding nature of the 1996 agreement under the 1983 scheme. It dismissed the petitioners' claim of entitlement under the 1934 scheme and upholds the non-renewable nature of the 1983 scheme.

Summary: (a) Islamic-law-------Marriages---Irregular marriage---When a lady entered into marriage before completion ofiddat period, then said marriage would not be a "void marriage" but would be an irregularmarriage---Such union, which was an "irregular marriage", could not be regarded as beingagainst Sharia.Allah Dad v. Mukhtar Ahmed 1992 SCMR 1273 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 373 & 372---Succession Certificate---Nature of proceedings under Ss.373 & 372 ofSuccession Act, 1925---Dispute between legal heirs and intricate questions of facts,determination of---Scope---Procedure provided for in S.373 of Succession Act, 1925 was ofa summary nature and did not decide rights of parties---For determination of rights as legalheirs, remedy lay before a court of competent jurisdiction---Intricate questions of fact couldnot be resolved in such summary proceedings, and questions as to title of property had to bedecided before a civil court.

Summary: The order sheet discussed the arguments presented by both parties' legal counsel, the essential facts for adjudication, and legal principles under Muhammadan Law related to inheritance. The court ultimately concluded that the petitioners, being more distant relatives, are not entitled to a share in the inheritance of the deceased Sardar Ali, and the revision was dismissed.

Summary: (a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------S. 372---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),Arts. 85, 92 & 129---Succession certificate, issuance of---Public document---Presumption oftruth---Scope---Succession certificate was issued in favour of legal heirs of deceased,whereafter an application for impleadment of a party was moved with the contention that theminor being an adopted son had no entitlement in the legacy of deceased---Trial Courtrecalled succession certificate issued in favour of petitioners with the direction to the partiesto approach the civil Court for redressal of their grievance---Validity---Deceased had leftbehind the widow and a minor son as legal heirs---Parentage of minor son was supported bythe record of National Database and Registration Authority and passport issued by Ministryof Interior Government---Presumption of truth was attached to the official record unlessproved otherwise---Presumption with regard to validity of public documents would carryweight unless it had been rebutted---Courts below had failed to exercise jurisdiction properlyand appreciated the facts of the case in accordance with law---Impugned orders passed by theCourts below were set aside and succession certificate was restored---Revision was allowed,in circumstances.(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------Significance.