Summary: (a) Islamic law-------Inheritance---Inheritance would always be open according to Sharia.(b) Islamic Law-------Inheritance---Deceased being issueless having pre-deceased and surviving brothers---Inheritance mutation of deceased attested in presence of his surviving brother giving halfland to orphan sons of their pre-deceased brother even though surviving brother was entitledto inherit entire land---Suit by legal heirs of surviving brother after nine years of his deathand after 18 years of attestation of suit mutation in favour of such orphans alleged to becollusive, fictitious and forged---Proof---Surviving brother for about 18 years during his lifetime and his legal heirs for about nine years after his death remained silent and never agitatedsuch matter---Legal heirs after death of surviving brother/original owner had no locus standito assert for their inheritance by challenging suit mutation independently after 27 years of itsattestation---Legal heirs were not present at the time of attestation of suit mutation, thus, theycould not prove alleged collusion---Attestation of suit mutation in presence of survivingbrother would give rise to presumption that he himself had advised Revenue Authorities fordivision of land out of love and affection with his orphan nephews and surrendered his sharein their favour---Impugned mutation was legal, in circumstances.Kala Khan and others v. Rab Nawaz and others 2004 SCMR 517; Sameen Khan and 4 others v. Haji Mir Azad and others 2002 CLC 754; Muhammad Yaqoob v. Hameeda Begumand 4 others 2005 CLC 870; Gul Nawab and others v. Naimatullah and others 2004 CLC973; Haji Ghulam Sarwar v. Syeda Roohi Begum and 19 others 1996 CLC 172; Fazal Din v.Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) and 2 others 1987 CLC 1053; Mst. Mumtaz Begumand others v. Abdur Rashid and others 1988 CLC 2023; Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v.Punnu Khan and others 1986 SCMR 962; Muhammad Idrees and others v. MuhammadPervaiz and others 2010 SCMR 5; Moulvi Muhammad Azeem v. Alhaj Mehmood KhanBangish and another 2010 SCMR 817; Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Kallu and others 2008SCMR 452 and Nazir Ahmed and others v. Abdullah and others 1997 SCMR 281 ref.Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others 2002 SCMR 1330 rel.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.115---Concurrent findings of facts by courts below---Revisional jurisdiction of HighCourt---Scope---Failure of courts below to consider real facts of case and evidence availableon record would amount to mis-reading and non-reading of evidence---High Court in suchcircumstances would set aside such findings of facts.Khalik Ahmed v. Abdul Jabbar Khan and others 2005 SCMR 911 and Mubarik Alithrough L.Rs v. Amroo Khan through L.Rs, 2007 SCMR 1714 rel.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law-------Inheritance, opening of---Effect---Legal heirs(s) alive at time of death of deceased would getinheritance---Principle.(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 117---Beneficiary of a document or fact would be bound to prove the same.(c) Co-owner-------Limitation would not run against co-owner(s) in land---Rationale.Limitation does not run against the co-owners. The rational behind is that the revenue record isprepared periodically and after preparation of every periodical record, fresh .cause of actionarises to the aggrieved party and the share of all the co-sharers remains intact in each and everyinch of the land unless the property is partitioned and the point of limitation is renderedineffectual.PLD 1969 SC 617; PLD 2005 AJ&K 15; 1985 MLD 101; 2003 MLD 399; 2000 SCMR 1574;PLD 1993 Pesh. 127 and 2003 MLD 399 ref.

Summary: Destitute divorced wife permitted to retain possession of her former husband?s property in absence of legal heir of deceased owner---Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-------Arts. 199 & 204---Contempt of Court Ordinance (IV of 2003), Ss.3/5---Application forinitiating contempt proceedings---Applicant had alleged that respondent who was divorcedwife of deceased owner of property in dispute, in violation of judgment of High Court, passedin constitutional petition, had taken possession of one shop and one room of property ofdeceased, while she was not legal heir of deceased being divorced wife before death ofdeceased---Contempt application was resisted by the respondent contending that theapplicant had no locus standi, nor any right or interest in the property in dispute nor he wasthe legal heir of the deceased owner-Counsellor the respondent had stated that respondentwas an old lady of about seventy years of age and was looking after a mentally challengedson---Counsel for the respondent had further stated that, if any legal heir of deceased ownerwould approach the respondent, she would vacate the premises in dispute---AdditionalAdvocate General also opposed contempt application on the ground that applicant had nolocus standi; and that in respect of unclaimed properties the State was the owner thereof---Property in dispute had not been claimed by any one---Counsel for the respondent hadundertaken on behalf of the respondent that she would not sell, transfer or alienate theproperty in dispute; and if any legal heirs of deceased owner would appear on the scene,she would hand over the property to them---In view of said undertaking no action ofcontempt could be initiated---Providing an abode to respondent who was an aged lady and her mentally challenged son, would promote social and economic well-being---Keeninterest shown by the applicant in the property in dispute had not been explained---Contempt application was disposed of in the terms that respondent and her mentallychallenged son was permitted to retain possession of premises in dispute till the arrival ofany legal heir of deceased owner; that respondent and anyone claiming through or underher, would not sell, transfer or alienate said premises; and that if the respondent wouldvacate the premises, same would be taken over by the State.

Summary: Islamic law. Inheritance---Scope---On the death of owner, legal heirs became entitled for their due share under personal law without intervention of the court or authority.

Summary: PLJ 2008 Lahore 412 Present Maulvi Anwar - ul - Haq J MUHAMMAD ARIF and 12 others - - Petitioners versus MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ and 32 others - - Respondents CR No 361 of 2002 heard on 1892007 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 115 - - Inheritance mutation - - Joint possession - - Factum of minority - - Minor at the time of sale - - Beneficiary to prove the transaction as a fact - - Question of title - - Possibility cannot be ruled out - - A mutation does neither confer any title nor in fact is evidence of title - - Plea of adverse possession and plea of title in the same breath are mutually destructive - - Admittedly the land is joint and actual possession is not of any relevance - - Predecessor - in - interest of the petitioners was not in possession - - Nothing therefore turns on such possession which for all purposes inures for benefit of petitioners as well till such time partition is effected - - Held High Court is inclined to grant a chance to respondents to prove a valid sale as possibility cannot be ruled out in view of the peculiar circumstances of such case that they were mis - led by the form of issue [P 415] A B C D PLJ 2007 SC 797 2007 SCMR 236 NLR 2000 SCJ 135 ref Syed M Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid Advocate for Petitioners Agha Intizar Ali Imran Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Case remanded.

Summary: Background:The case revolves around a dispute concerning the inheritance of property once belonging to Mst. Khairan. Maula Bakhsh and five others, identified as the respondents, asserted they were descendants of Abdur Rehman and Mst. Khairan and thus rightful heirs to the property. This claim challenged Mutation No. 562, attested on January 6, 1942, which had transferred inheritance rights to Atta Muhammad, the appellant. The respondents filed a suit alleging that their inheritance rights were ignored and the mutation was obtained through fraudulent means. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit citing insufficient evidence and the expiration of statutory limitation periods. Contrarily, the Lahore High Court overturned these decisions and ruled in favor of the respondents.---Issues:Was the property mutation in favor of Atta Muhammad legally justified?Was the respondents' suit barred by time limitations?Were the respondents' claims to inheritance, based on their alleged lineage from Abdur Rehman and Mst. Khairan, valid?----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled in favor of the appellant, reversing the Lahore High Court's decision and reinstating the judgments of the trial and first appellate courts. Key findings included:The respondents failed to adequately prove their entitlement to the property and their familial relationship to Mst. Khairan.The pedigree claims presented by the respondents were unsupported by credible evidence and were found to be misrepresented.The Lahore High Court's ruling was flawed due to its failure to account for the significant delay (46 years) in challenging the mutation and its disregard for the applicable statutes of limitations.The assertion by the High Court that limitation does not apply to inheritance cases was deemed incorrect and an overreach in judicial interpretation.Given the elapsed time and the absence of supporting evidence, the mutation favoring Atta Muhammad was upheld, and the respondents' suit was dismissed as time-barred.----Citations/Precedents:Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others, PLD 1971 SC 762: Endorsed the application of limitation laws in inheritance disputes.Mst. Phaphan through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others, 2005 SCMR 1278: Supported the dismissal of suits as time-barred in inheritance cases.Luqman and others v. Gul Muhammad, 1984 SCMR 63: Confirmed the application of limitation statutes to long-standing inheritance mutation challenges.

Summary: Background:This case involves a dispute over the inheritance of property previously owned by Mst. Khairan. Maula Bakhsh and five others, respondents in this case, claimed they were offspring of Abdur Rehman and Mst. Khairan, and thus rightful heirs to the property. The property had been mutated in favor of Atta Muhammad, the appellant, by Mutation No. 562 attested on January 6, 1942. This mutation was contested by the respondents, who filed a suit claiming their inheritance rights were overlooked and that the mutation was fraudulently obtained. The trial court and the first appellate court both dismissed the suit based on several grounds including lack of evidence and time-bar issues. However, the Lahore High Court reversed these decisions, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondents.----Issues:Whether the property mutation favoring Atta Muhammad was legally justified.Whether the suit filed by the respondents was barred by time.The validity of the respondents' claim to inheritance based on their alleged lineage from Abdur Rehman and Mst. Khairan.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, reversing the judgment of the Lahore High Court and restoring the decisions of the trial and first appellate courts. The Supreme Court found:The respondents had not adequately proven their entitlement to the property or their relationship to Mst. Khairan.The claims regarding the pedigree of the respondents were unsupported by credible evidence and deemed to be misrepresented.The Lahore High Court erred in its decision by not considering the substantial delay (46 years) in challenging the mutation and by disregarding the statute of limitations applicable to inheritance disputes.The High Court's conclusion that no question of limitation arises in inheritance cases was deemed incorrect and an overreach of judicial interpretation.Given the passage of time and the lack of evidence, the mutation in favor of Atta Muhammad was upheld, and the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed as being time-barred.----Citations/Precedents:Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others, PLD 1971 SC 762: Supported the application of limitation laws to inheritance disputes.Mst. Phaphan through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others, 2005 SCMR 1278: Reinforced dismissal of suits as time-barred in inheritance cases.Luqman and others v. Gul Muhammad, 1984 SCMR 63: Affirmed the application of limitation statutes to challenges against mutations of inheritance dating back decades.

Summary: "PLJ 2006 AJK 49. Present: Ghulam Mustafa Mughal J. Appellant: Muhammad Fayyaz vs. Respondents: Barkat Hussain and 2 others. Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2005, decided on 13-12-2005. ----(i) Muhammadan Law - The right of inheritance under Muhammadan Law opens upon the demise of a Muslim landowner and does not depend on the attestation of mutation. [P 55] D. -----(ii) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 (10 of 1984) - Article 114 [as applicable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir] covers inheritance rights and abandonment of claims. If an heir abandons part of their claim in favor of a non-heir (such as a nephew aged 5–6), any suit to challenge this abandonment after 20 years would be barred by estoppel, and such abandonment would be considered a compromise in the suit. [Pp 54-55] C, E. -----(iii) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 (XVI of 1967) - Sections 53 and 172 state that a suit for establishing title to land falls within the Civil Court's jurisdiction, and the bar in Section 172 does not prevent the plaintiff from seeking appropriate relief. [P 53] A. -----(iv) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 (XVII of 1967) - Section 53 provides that in a suit challenging mutation, the officers who prepared the record and sanctioned the mutation are not necessary parties. [P 53] B (references: 1992 SCR 214, 2003 SCR 77, 2005 SCR 53, 1989 CLC 2140, 1988 CLC 2023, 1990 MLD 112, 1990 MLD 2111, PLD 1978 SC (AJK) 75, PLD 1976 AJK 17, PLD 1990 SC 1, PLD 1996 Lahore 99, PLJ 2000 FSC 36). -----Background: The appellant challenged the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge in favor of the respondent, Barkat Hussain, regarding inheritance and property rights. Barkat Hussain had previously waived part of his inheritance rights in favor of his young nephew, Muhammad Fayyaz, through Mutation No. 110, which was attested in 1989. Over 20 years later, Barkat Hussain filed a suit challenging the mutation, alleging it was collusive and violated Islamic inheritance law. The trial court dismissed the suit due to lack of proof, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the decision, leading to this second appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent (Barkat Hussain) was estopped from challenging the mutation after waiving his rights and participating in its attestation. -----2- Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the case given the mutation's status as a revenue matter. -----3- Whether officers involved in the record and mutation process were necessary parties in the suit. -----4- Whether the suit was maintainable given the absence of specific property descriptions. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the principles of estoppel, concluding that Barkat Hussain was barred from challenging the mutation. His presence during the mutation attestation, along with his explicit consent to transfer his inheritance to Muhammad Fayyaz, constituted an abandonment of rights. The court further clarified that, although Civil Courts have jurisdiction over land title suits under Section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, they cannot direct revenue authorities regarding record entries. It was also determined that the officers responsible for mutation were not necessary parties, as the dispute was solely between the family members. As a result, the court set aside the Additional District Judge’s decision, applying the rule of estoppel and acknowledging the respondent’s prolonged inaction as a waiver of his rights. -----Citations/Precedents: Article 114, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Provides the basis for estoppel in cases where one party induces another to believe in a certain state of affairs. Section 53, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 – Allows aggrieved parties to seek title declarations in Civil Court. 1992 SCR 214; 2003 SCR 77; 2005 SCR 53 – Cases on the principle of estoppel and the finality of inheritance waivers through express actions. Ghulam Ali’s Case (PLD 1990 SC 1) – Established that Islamic inheritance rights vest immediately upon a person’s death without state or clerical intervention.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S. 39---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Mutation---Proof ofownership---Scope---Correctness of mutation---Onus to prove---Presumption of truth isattached with Revenue Record but such presumption is always rebuttable---Mutationitself does not confer or extinguish any right or title and if the mutation on the basis ofwhich right in the property is claimed, is disputed, the onus of proving the correctnessof mutation and genuineness of the transaction contained therein would be on the partyclaiming right on the basis of such mutation---Mutations are entered and sanctioned tokeep the Revenue Record in order which do not, as such, create right or title in theproperty---Entries in Revenue Record based on wrong mutation do not have any legaleffect on the title of property.(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 117, 120 & 127---Transaction on behalf of Pardahnashin lady---Good faith oftransaction---Onus to prove---If genuineness of a transaction entered on behalf of aPardahnashin lady is disputed by the lady, heavy onus would lie on the person whoasserts right through it, to prove the good faith and genuineness as envisaged in Art. 127of Qanun e-Shahadat, 1984---Genuineness of transaction of disposition by Pardahnashinladies and also by illiterate and ignorant women, must be established by the person whoclaims its genuineness or who is to be benefited by such transaction through reliable,cogent and convincing evidence.(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 120---Constitution of Pakistan(1973), Art.185 (3)---Declaration of title---Inherited property---Gift by Pardahnashinlady---Onus to prove---Plaintiffs being sisters of defendant disputed mutation of giftattested in favour of defendant on the ground of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation--Trial Court decreed the suit and judgment and decree passed by Trial Court weremaintained by Appellate Court and High Court---Validity---Express or oralrelinquishment of right of a female heir in inherited property in favour of male heir,through gift or any other legal device, takes effect in normal circumstances---If theexistence of such transaction was denied and disputed by the female heir, a presumptionwould be raised that the transaction was not genuine and to prove that it was entered ingood faith and was a genuine transaction, onus would be on the person who was claimingits genuineness---If such onus was not discharged satisfactorily, the document ofrelinquishment of rights of female heir in the property in favour of a male heir, wouldnot, ipso facto, confer title adverse to the interest of female heir--Defendant was not onlyunder the legal obligation to protect the right of his sisters in the suit property rather itwas also his moral duty to accept their claim and deliver the possession of the land oftheir share to them voluntarily---Supreme Court did not find any legal defect or infirmityof misreading or non-reading of evidence by High Court in affirming the concurrentfindings of fact of two Courts below---Leave to appeal was refused.(d) Gift-------Fraud---Gift transaction based upon fraud---Limitation, computation of---In cases offraud, limitation would start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of fraud.(e) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Declaration of title---Inherited property---Delay in claiming share in inheritedproperty---Effect---Mere delay in claiming share in inherited property would not defeatthe right of a person in inheritance and if he is non-suited on such technical ground, hisright of inheritance would be defeated.

Summary: PLJ 2004 Lahore 506 [Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi] Present MAULVI ANWAR - UL - HAQ J Mst PIARI JANPetitioner versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 14 others - Respondents CR No 321D of 1998 heard on 15102003 Specific Relief Act 1877 (1 of 1877) - - - S 42 - Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) S US - Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that their predecessor had divorced defendant during his life time and that share of his inheritance awarded to her be declared to be void - Plaintiffs suit was dismissed however they succeeded in appeal and their suit was decreed - Legality - Plaintiff s predecessor had earlier filed suit against present defendant during his life time that defendant stands divorced - Plaintiffs suit was however dismissed for lack of evidence as also for non - prosecution when he was still alivePredecessor of plaintiff had also filed writ petition to that effect which was also dismissed - No evidence was available on record that deceased plaintiff had taken any steps for restoration of those proceedings - Writ petition had been filed against order of maintenance allowed by Arbitration - Effect of dismissal of writ petition was that deceased had to pay maintenance to defendant and that order remained in the field - Trial Court had rightly dismissed present suit of successors - in - interest of deceased plaintiff on the basis of evidence on record while appellate Court had misread evidence in decreeing their suitJudgment of trial Court whereby plaintiffs suit was dismissed was restored while that of Appellate Court decreeing their suit was set aside [P 508] A PLD 1991 Karachi 174 ref Sardar Tariq Anees Advocate for Petitioner Raja Muhammad Asam Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Revision accepted.