Summary: Background:After the death of Haji Gul Hassan Sheikh, Haji Sultan Mehmood obtained a succession certificate claiming to be the sole legal heir.Later, it was discovered that Haji Gul Hassan Sheikh had two wives and several legal heirs, including the present Appellants, who were daughters of one of the wives.The Appellants filed an application under Section 383 of the Succession Act, 1925, seeking the revocation of the succession certificate obtained by Haji Sultan Mehmood.---Issues:Whether the revocation of the succession certificate obtained by Haji Sultan Mehmood was justified.Whether the High Court's dismissal of the revocation application based on procedural grounds was appropriate.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that technicalities should not hinder the dispensation of justice, especially when the matter involves fraud and misrepresentation.Under Mohammadan law, all legal heirs are entitled to their respective shares in the inheritance, regardless of procedural irregularities.The Court criticized the High Court's decision to dismiss the revocation application based on technical grounds related to representation by counsel, stating that the representation of legal heirs by counsel is permissible under the law.The delay in filing the revocation application was deemed reasonable considering the circumstances, and the Appellants were entitled to revoke the succession certificate obtained through fraud.The Court directed the trial court to take action against Haji Sultan Mehmood for committing fraud under Section 198 PPC and ordered him to bear the costs of the litigation.---Citations/Precedents:Pervaiz Akhtar and another v. The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and four others (1990 PSC 1109)Limitation Act, 1908Succession Act, 1925Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure---Quote:Limitation in this case where the daughters of the deceased filed an application for cancellation of succession certificate obtained by their step-brother showing himself to be the only heir would run from the date of knowledge.

Summary: Background:In the case at hand, Muhammad Tufail filed a suit claiming he was wrongfully disinherited from his inheritance due to a registered deed (Tamleeknama) and subsequent mutation. The legal controversy arose from a mutation of Tamleek No. 749 dated March 21, 1985, implemented pursuant to a registered Tamleek deed dated March 17, 1985 (Exh.P-7). The appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment dated April 27, 2009, of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which set aside an appellate court decision and restored the trial court's decree in favor of Muhammad Tufail, affirming his entitlement as an heir.---Issues:The primary issue was whether Muhammad Tufail could be recognized as a legal heir of Gomaan and thereby claim his share of the inheritance which was seemingly transferred through a gift deed.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, presided by Justices Umar Ata Bandial and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the Lahore High Court and the Trial Court. The Court held that:The registered gift deed and the subsequent mutation failed to legally disinherit Muhammad Tufail. This conclusion was based on the lack of evidence for the declaration and acceptance of the gift, which are crucial elements for the validity of a gift under Pakistani law.The mere transfer of possession, without evidence of gift declaration or acceptance, does not constitute a valid gift.Furthermore, a gift deed that intends to disinherit an heir must justify such disinheritance, which was not done in this case.The Court relied on prior rulings that emphasized the need for clear evidence of a gift transaction and its acceptance to exclude an heir lawfully. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and Muhammad Tufail's status as an heir was upheld.---Citations/Precedents:Kulsoom Bibi v. Muhammad Arif, 2005 SCMR 135 - Established that a donee claiming under a gift that excludes an heir must establish the original transaction of the gift.Ghulam Haider v. Ghulam Rasool, 2003 SCMR 1829 - Reiterated the necessity of establishing the actual gift transaction.Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail, 2002 SCMR 1938 - Highlighted the requirement for a gift deed to justify the disinheritance of an heir.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Suit for declaration---Inheritance---Limitation---Gift---Proof of---Procedure---Saleof suit land to third party---Effect---Contention of plaintiff was that impugned mutation wasbased on fraud---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Plaintiff and defendant beingson and daughter of the deceased were the only legal heirs---Parties being legal heirs ofdeceased were entitled for their proportionate legal share from the legacy of deceased---Legacy left by the deceased had to be distributed amongst the legal heirs as per Sharia---Defendant had failed to produce any witness of oral gift or mutation entries---Impugnedmutation did not bear signatures of deceased donor---Neither any witness of gift nor mutationentries was produced by the defendant to verify gift, its acceptance and delivery ofpossession---Impugned gift had neither been proved nor authenticated through any evidence---No one could claim ownership title in presence of other legal heirs on the basis of gift orwill---Parties became co-sharer after the demise of donor---Possession of one co-sharer wasto be deemed to be the possession of other co-sharer---When inheritance opened then entry ofmutation was not necessary---Suit of plaintiff was not barred by time---Plaintiff being cosharer was entitled for her legal share---Plaintiff had been deprived from her legal share inthe legacy illegally and unlawfully---Suit land had already been sold and plaintiff wasentitled to receive her share from the sale amount received by her brother---Impugnedjudgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was decreed---Defendant was directed to pay the share of plaintiff according to Sharia within a period ofthree months---Plaintiff could initiate execution proceedings against the defendant in case ofhis failure to pay the said amount of sale consideration---Revision was allowed incircumstances

Summary: The application sought the grant of a Letter of Administration for the deceased's complete estate and a Succession Certificate for movable properties. The legal framework involved included the Succession Act, 1925, among other laws and international legal principles.The deceased, Tahir Ahmed Khan, left behind an estate comprising both movable and immovable properties, including bank accounts in Pakistan and properties in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates. The court noted that all legal heirs, including the petitioner, were the deceased's children, and the deceased's former wife was not a legal heir due to a prior divorce recognized by the relevant authority.The application process included the submission of necessary documents such as the death certificate, family registration, and affidavits from independent witnesses. Notices were published in widely circulated newspapers, and no adverse claims were filed against the estate. The court discussed the maintainability of the petition, referencing a Supreme Court judgment and comparing it with the present case's facts, especially regarding the jurisdiction over properties situated abroad.The court distinguished the current case from previous judgments, taking into account the non-contentious nature of the matter and the parties' submission to the court's jurisdiction. It highlighted the reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of judgments between Pakistan and other countries, including the UK and UAE, which would allow for the recognition and execution of the court's orders in those jurisdictions.Ultimately, the court granted the petition, emphasizing the global context of legal matters and the importance of addressing the rights and interests of ordinary citizens in a "global village." The petitioner was instructed to file an interim report and account for the estate as per the Succession Act's requirements.

Summary: Background:The Respondent No.1, the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking a declaration that she, as the real daughter of Rajada, the pre-deceased son of Ahmad (the propositus), was entitled to inherit from her grandfather's legacy to the extent of her shari share.The defendants, legal heirs of Sadiq alias Sadu, the surviving son of Ahmad, denied her claim, stating that the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit as per Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962.The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, citing lack of entitlement and limitation.The High Court, however, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating she was entitled to inherit her shari share from her grandfather's legacy.---Issues:Whether the plaintiff and the widows of the pre-deceased son were entitled to inherit the legacy of the propositus.The applicability of Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, on the inheritance rights.Whether the plaintiff's suit was time-barred.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court held that the plaintiff, being the daughter of the pre-deceased son, was entitled to inherit her shari share from her grandfather's legacy.The applicability of Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the Act V of 1962 was affirmed, allowing inheritance rights to the legal heirs of the pre-deceased son.The plaintiff's suit was not considered time-barred as she became a co-owner upon the opening of succession, and any wrong entry in the record of rights provided a fresh cause of action.The plaintiff and the widows were entitled to inherit their respective shares from the legacy.---Citations/Precedents:Mst. Sarwar Jan and others Vs. Mukhtar Ahmad and others (PLD 2012 SC 217)Sardar Vs. Mst. Nehmat Bi and 8 others (1992 SCMR 82)Federation of Pakistan v. Mst. Farishta (PLD 1981 SC 120)Muhammad Yaqub and others Vs. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (2002 CLC 819)Muhammad Murad and 12 others Vs. Allah Bakhsh and 34 others (2006 MLD 286)Allah Rakha and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2000 FSC 1)Mst. Samia Naz and others Vs. Sheikh Pervaiz Afzal and others (2002 SCMR 164)Muhammad Ali and others Vs. Muhammad Ramzan and others (2002 SCMR 426)Mst. Phaphan through L.Rs. Vs Muhammad Bakhsh and others (2005 SCMR 1278)Atta Muhammad Vs. Maula Bakhsh and others (2007 SCMR 1446)Muhammad Rustam and another Vs. Mst. Makhan Jan and others (2013 SCMR 299)Noor Din and another Vs. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (2014 SCMR 513)

Summary: Detailed judgement in Urdu.

Summary: The trial court had initially dismissed the suit, but the respondents appealed the decision to the District Judge, Nankana Sahib, who ruled in their favor, stating that the mutation of inheritance had been wrongly sanctioned in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed this civil revision. In the civil revision, the petitioner argued that the lower appellate court's decision was unlawful and based on a misinterpretation of the evidence. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to specifically deny the key fact that Babu, his father, had died prior to Barkat Ali's death. Consequently, the court ruled that the mutation of inheritance should have been in favor of the respondents, who were closer relatives to Barkat Ali, and that the question of limitation did not apply in this case. The court ultimately upheld the lower appellate court's decision, dismissing the petitioner's case. This civil revision case revolves around a dispute over inheritance, with the court ultimately ruling in favor of the respondents and upholding the decision of the lower appellate court.

Summary: The background of the case involved a suit filed by respondents No. 3 to 7 against Muhammad Ishaque, contesting the transfer of land through a gift deed from their father. They alleged that the transfer was fraudulent and deprived them of their rightful inheritance. During the proceedings, a statement was made by Muhammad Ishaque, leading to the decree of the suit in favor of the respondents. The trial court and the Additional District Judge both dismissed Muhammad Ishaque's application, finding that there was no evidence of fraud or misconduct on the part of the respondents, and that the proceedings had been conducted in accordance with the law. Muhammad Ishaque, through his constitutional petition, challenged these decisions. However, the Lahore High Court upheld the lower court's orders, concluding that there was no evidence of fraud or misconduct, and that the proceedings had been conducted properly. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Summary: The respondents had initiated legal proceedings to claim a share of a property in Rawalpindi, asserting that it had been permanently transferred to them and their mother, with the mother having a 1/8 share and the remaining 7/8 belonging to them. They argued that upon their mother's death in 1979, her share had passed on to them, including her sons and daughters (respondents No. 1 to 4) and other related parties. Initially, the trial court issued a preliminary decree in favor of the respondents, specifying the distribution of shares among the parties. However, this decree was challenged by the petitioners through an appeal. The petitioners argued that the appellate court had reached its decision based on a misinterpretation and misreading of the evidence. They maintained that they were the rightful legal heirs of the original property allottee and were entitled to their share in the property. The judgment noted that the assertion of the petitioners' acquiescence was not present in the original complaint, and introducing new facts that were not part of the initial pleadings was impermissible. The court emphasized that without a documented or formal relinquishment of rights, the petitioners could not be deprived of their lawful entitlements. Ultimately, the court set aside the decision of the lower appellate court and reinstated the judgment and decree issued by the trial court.

Summary: Detailed judgement in Urdu.