Summary: (a) Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935 & 1962 ----Inheritance---Limited ownership of widow under custom---Devolution of property on death of widow---Scope and effect---Widow shown as full owner in revenue record---Reversion of property to legal heirs of deceased husband---Petitioners, being legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Ayub, filed a suit claiming that his widow, Mst. Bibi Hawa (later shown as Mst. Hashmat Bibi), was entered as a limited owner under prevailing custom and that upon her death, property should have devolved upon Ayub’s legal heirs under Islamic law---Mutation No. 2844 (dated 05.06.1983) had transferred full ownership to legal heirs of the widow, to the exclusion of other legal heirs of Muhammad Ayub---Held, under prevailing Riwaj before the promulgation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, a widow inherited as limited owner, and on her death, the property reverted to the husband’s legal heirs---After promulgation of the Shariat Act, the widow became full owner only to the extent of her Islamic share---Property in dispute was wrongly mutated to her legal heirs as though she owned the entire share of her deceased husband, which was contrary to law. (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of courts below---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Interference justified---Trial court and appellate court concurrently dismissed petitioners’ suit without appreciating material on record, including entries in Jamabandis and the implications of customary and Islamic inheritance laws---High Court held that both lower courts misread the evidence and wrongly applied estoppel and limitation, necessitating revisional interference. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice of custom---Court may take judicial notice of well-established custom having the force of law---No need to prove customary limitation of widow’s rights in each case where settled precedent exists. **(d) Estoppel---Scope---Petitioners not estopped from asserting legal entitlement merely due to non-objection to compensation received by legal heirs of widow---Such acquiescence did not negate their claim under Islamic law, particularly when only 16 marlas of property were acquired, and petitioners admitted entitlement of respondents to widow’s Shari share. (e) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Art. 120---Continuous possession---Refreshing cause of action---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Where plaintiffs remain in continuous possession and only a portion of the land is acquired or claimed adversely, recurring entries constitute continuing wrongs and refresh the cause of action---Petition held not barred by limitation. **(f) Relief---Correction of mutation---Declaratory relief---Civil court and revisional court have jurisdiction to mould relief even if mutation is not specifically challenged, where necessary to give effect to declaratory findings---Earlier inheritance mutation (No. 2844) in favour of legal heirs of widow set aside and direction issued for fresh mutation as per Shariah shares. Cited Cases: • Maqbool Ahmad v. Fazal-i-Haq 2012 SCMR 917 • Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1971 SC 791 • Fayyaz Hussain v. Haji Jan Muhammad 2018 SCMR 698 • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353 • Saadat Khan v. Shahid ur Rehman PLD 2023 SC 362 • Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna 2001 SCMR 1700 • Samar Gul v. Mohabat Khan 2000 SCMR 974 Disposition: Revision allowed. Judgments of trial and appellate courts set aside. Mutation No. 2844 declared void to the extent of excess inheritance. Petitioners declared entitled to Shari shares. Revenue record to be corrected accordingly. Preliminary decree passed with liberty to seek final decree.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law --- Inheritance of spinster Muslim female --- Succession rights of uterine brother vs. stepbrothers --- Applicability of Quranic injunctions --- Article 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Petitioner (Manzoor Ahmad) was the uterine brother of deceased Mst. Nooran, a Muslim spinster who died issueless. Trial and appellate courts had wrongly decreed the suit in favour of stepbrothers (sons of deceased's paternal uncle), holding them entitled to share in the estate. The High Court reversed these findings, holding that under Islamic law, only the uterine brother (born of same mother) inherits the entire estate of an issueless spinster female in the absence of closer heirs. The Court emphasized that under Article 227 of the Constitution and Quranic verses (Surah An-Nisa, Ayat 7–11, 176), all Muslims are bound to adhere to settled principles of succession, and the shares prescribed therein are conclusive. (b) Evidence Law --- Admissibility of documentary evidence --- Invalid mode of tendering --- Production by counsel without witness --- Effect. The respondents/plaintiffs had produced key documents (Jamabandi, mutation No. 294, death certificate of deceased) during counsel’s statement, without producing a competent witness to tender or verify them. The Court held this method of exhibiting documents to be inadmissible and devoid of probative value. Reliance was placed on PLD 2021 SC 715 and 2023 SCMR 730, reiterating that proper evidentiary procedure requires documents to be brought on record by a party through a witness, with an opportunity for cross-examination by the opposing party. (c) Inheritance Law --- Date of death --- Disputed death certificate --- Burden of proof --- Effect of failure to prove falsity of mutation. The respondents failed to prove their claim that deceased Nooran died in 1998 (before the death of their father), relying solely on an unverified death certificate. The petitioner successfully established through oral and circumstantial evidence that Nooran died in 2001, after their father's death, thereby excluding the respondents from succession. Furthermore, their previous appeal before DDOR challenging inheritance mutation No. 294 had already been dismissed. Absence of credible evidence rendered the respondents’ claim baseless. (d) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 --- S. 115 --- Revisional jurisdiction --- Concurrent findings by courts below --- Interference by revisional court --- When justified. Although the trial and appellate courts had concurrently ruled against the petitioner, the High Court found their findings on core issues (issues 1–3) to be perverse, suffering from misreading, non-reading of evidence, and misapplication of Islamic law. The Court invoked its revisional powers under Section 115, C.P.C., to reverse concurrent findings, citing settled precedent that such intervention is justified where findings are patently illegal or contrary to established law. Disposition: Civil revision allowed. Judgments and decrees of trial and appellate courts set aside. Petitioner’s suit for declaration decreed. Respondents’ suit dismissed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) —Ss. 115, 2(2)—Succession—Administration petition—Conversion into civil suit—Validity—Stranger challenging title of deceased—Maintainability—Principles— High Court set aside trial court’s order converting an administration petition into a civil suit at the instance of a stranger to the estate (i.e., nephew of the deceased)—Held, objections raised by a person who is neither a legal heir nor a legatee cannot transform an administration petition into adversarial proceedings—Disputes raised by such stranger fall outside the scope of administration and must be adjudicated in separate civil proceedings—Conversion of petition was contrary to binding precedent in PLD 2011 Karachi 83 (Ghazala Zakir case). (b) Succession—Administration of estate—Scope of court’s jurisdiction—Test for inclusion of property disputes— Court reiterated settled test: if the determination of a property dispute affects inter se rights of legal heirs, it may be decided in administration proceedings; if it only affects third-party claims or strangers, such dispute must be resolved separately—Objector’s allegation of deceased being benamidar of his own father, without any prior legal action during deceased’s lifetime, held insufficient to defeat or delay administration process. (c) Benami Transactions—Claim of benami ownership posthumously—Delay and laches—Effect— Where the alleged real owner (Mumtaz Ali Khan) never asserted title or took legal action during his lifetime, and no legal proceedings were initiated by his heirs for decades, subsequent claims of benami interest by nephew held belated and to be adjudicated separately—Challenge rejected in administration petition. (d) Stamp Duty & Legal Dues—Release of title documents—Preconditions— Court observed that original title documents could not be released to legal heirs until payment of all dues including stamp duty, transfer fees, and related charges—Claim of ownership based on an agreement coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 would not override legal obligations for payment of government dues. Disposition: Appeal Allowed—Impugned order converting administration petition into civil suit set aside—Objector declared a stranger to the estate—Right to initiate independent proceedings reserved—Nazir directed to inquire into status of title chain and execution proceedings for issuance of Letters of Administration. ----- Cited Law / Precedents: Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Zakir, PLD 2011 Karachi 83 Contract Act, 1872, S. 202 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.VII, R.11; Ss. 115, 2(2) Succession Act, 1925 (implied for administration proceedings)

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----Ss.15 & 16---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 27(2)(1)---Admission for fellowship training to enroll doctors for FCPS Part-II training in various specialties of affiliated public sector hospitals---Policy requiring married women to follow their husband's domicile---Constitutionality---Exclusion from purview of Art. 27 of the Constitution---Consistency of policy with the principles enunciated in Succession Act, 1925---Provincial autonomy---Contention of the petitioner was that since she had joined the training, therefore, the same could not be terminated---Validity---Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over devolved subjects, including health and can impose conditions like domicile or residence for appointments in these areas---Policy of Medical institution in question i.e., PGMI regarding domicile of married women was not hit by Art.27(2) of the Constitution, as it was excluded from its purview---Policy was consistent with the principles enshrined in Ss.15 & 16 of the Succession Act, 1925---Order obtained through concealment of facts could be rescinded under S.21 of the General Clauses Act and the authority granting the order was not barred from taking corrective action---Policy of PGMI requiring married women to follow their husband's domicile was rational, logical, and reasonable---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Inspector General of Police Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Province of Punjab through Executive District Officer (Education) Rawalpindi and another v. Ruqia Islam 2020 SCMR 490 and Amna Rehman and others v. Deputy District Education Officer (W) Elementary and others 2002 PLC (C. S) 1080 ref. Shabnam v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 4 others 2015 PLC (C.S) 1111; Mst. Najam Un Nisa v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education Khyber Pahtunkhwa 2021 PLC (C.S) 434; Mst. Fareeda Noor v.Mehar Muhammad Nawaz Sial and another 2005 CLC 669; Dr. Mst. Munawar Zaheen v. The Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1974 Lahore 36 and Mst. Shaista Gul v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 05 others W.P. No. 564-M of 2019 rel. Inayat Ullah for the Petitioner. Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Advocate General for Official Respondents of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Mohammad Asif Yousafzai for Respondent No. 5 (CEO, PGMI Peshawar). Date of hearing: 2nd May, 2024.

Summary: Issues:Whether Rabia Rafique and Ali Imran are the legal heirs of the deceased, Imran Azam, entitled to inheritance rights.The validity of the previous judgments and decrees in light of the alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the respondents.The applicability of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to review the judgments based on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the applications filed by Muhammad Siddique and Irfan Azam, challenging the legal heir status of Rabia Rafique and Ali Imran. The Court found no substantial evidence of fraud or misrepresentation that could invalidate the previous judgments recognizing the respondents as legal heirs. The Court emphasized that the allegations primarily pertained to disputes between the parties rather than fraud upon the Court. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the doctrine of election precludes the applicants from pursuing multiple remedies once one has been exhausted, especially after the dismissal of a review petition by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.The Court also clarified that the dissolution of marriage through Khula does not become ineffective due to non-issuance of a divorce certificate by the Union Council, addressing the applicant's claim regarding the marital status of Rabia Rafique. Additionally, the birth certificate of Ali Imran and other corroborative evidence sufficiently established his paternity, thus negating the applicant's claim of paternity.----Citations/Precedents:The Court referenced several legal principles and past judgments, including the interpretation of Section 12(2) of the CPC, the finality of Supreme Court decisions, the doctrine of election in legal remedies, and the effectiveness of Khula without a divorce certificate from the Union Council. Specific case citations include "DR. AKHLAQ AHMED V. MST. KISHWAR SULTANA & OTHERS" (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 169), "MST. LAILA QAYYUM V. FAWAD QAYUM AND OTHERS" (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449), and "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN V. DEVAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED AND OTHERS" (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 828), among others, to support the Court's reasoning and conclusions.

Summary: Issues:Whether the Release Deed executed in favor of Ihtisham-ul-Haq was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.The legal standing and implications of the Release Deed vis-?-vis the appellants' claim to the property.Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Islamabad High Court and restoring the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial and appellate courts. The Court found that the Release Deed was indeed secured through fraud and misrepresentation by Ihtisham-ul-Haq, who was in a dominant position and manipulated his sisters into signing the document under the pretense that it was for the transfer of the property to all legal heirs. The evidence suggested that no consideration was paid to the sisters for relinquishing their shares, nor was there any family settlement to justify the execution of the Release Deed. The Supreme Court emphasized that a release deed and a gift deed are distinct instruments with specific legal requirements, and in this case, the elements of a valid gift were absent. The Court also noted the societal pressures that often lead to female heirs being deprived of their rightful inheritance, reiterating the need to protect vulnerable individuals from such injustices.----Citations/Precedents:Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1): Discussed the unlikely scenario of male co-heirs relinquishing rights in favor of female heirs and highlighted the societal pressures that can lead to such relinquishments.Muhammad Shamim through Legal heirs v. Mst. Nisar Fatima through Legal Heirs and others (2010 SCMR 18): Emphasized that rightful owners cannot be deprived of their shares unless there is conscious abandonment or relinquishment.Sadar Din v. Mst. Khatoon and others (2004 SCMR 1102): Found an agreement of relinquishment without consideration to be void under Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872.Mirza Abid Baig v. Zahid Sabir (Deceased) through LRs and others (2020 SCMR 601): Highlighted the frequent deprivation of female relatives of their legal entitlement to inheritance by male family members.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for declaration seeking the cancellation of two mutations. The first mutation, executed on 24th June 1996, allegedly transferred land owned by the petitioner's mother to the first respondent without the petitioner's knowledge. The second mutation, executed on 21st March 2006, involved the further alienation of the land to a second respondent through a gift. The petitioner claimed the transactions were carried out fraudulently, depriving him of his rightful inheritance. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. However, the appellate court overturned this decision, which prompted the petitioner to file this civil revision petition. ----Issues: 1- Was the suit barred by the law of limitation? 2- Were the mutations validly executed, and were they legally enforceable? 3- Did the petitioner’s mother execute the sale mutation under undue influence? 4- Was the appellate court justified in overturning the trial court’s decision? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The possession of the land was transferred to the respondent in 1996, and the petitioner had delayed challenging the transaction for over a decade. The court found that the petitioner had knowledge of the mutations earlier than claimed, and his assertion that his mother was unaware of the transactions until her death was unsupported by evidence. The appellate court's judgment was affirmed as it was based on proper analysis and appraisal of the evidence. The trial court had misread certain key facts, leading to an erroneous judgment. Consequently, the civil revision petition was dismissed, and the appellate court’s decision stood. ----Citations/Precedents: Faqir Ali vs. Sakina Bibi (PLD 2022 SC 85) Ghulam Farid vs. Sher Rehman (2016 SCMR 862) Rehmatullah vs. Saleh Khan (2007 SCMR 729) Faheeman Begum vs. Islam-ud-Din (2023 SCMR 1402) Salamat Ali vs. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) Haji Muhammad Younis vs. Mst. Farukh Sultan (2022 SCMR 1282) Mst. Rabia Gula vs. Muhammad Janan (2022 SCMR 1009) Muhammad Nawaz vs. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan (2013 SCMR 1300) Amjad Ikram vs. Mst. Asiya Kausar (2015 SCMR 1) Muhammad Hafeez vs. District Judge, Karachi East (2008 SCMR 398) Mst. Saeeda vs. Muhammad Naeem (PLD 2013 Sindh 39) Muhammad Akram vs. Mst. Noor Begum (PLD 2019 SC 599)

Summary: (Criminal Revision)(a) The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Act XI of 2005).S.3/4?The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 2014?S.3-A?For proving the assertions under Sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, a complainant has to give full details of the mode and manner in which he was holding possession of an immovable property, and the time, mode and manner in which he was dispossessed.----(b) The Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?The respondents improved their status from one of tenants to that of co-owners/co-sharers through the alleged mutation, therefore, they could not be said to have illegally occupied the disputed property and the only course available to the petitioner was to file a petition for partition before the relevant forum to separate his share of the disputed property.(c) The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 2014?S.3-A?Prohibition of?succession of non-occupancy tenancies.?Under subsection (2) of Section 3-A, a tenant who enjoys tenancy right before the commencement of the Act, has been given protection and such tenants were to continue their right of tenancy till their eviction through a due process of law.(Revision petition was dismissed in the circumstances).

Summary: ----Ss.376 & 383---Police official---Succession certificate---Death on duty---Compensation amount---Tarka---Scope---Petitioner/widow of Shaheed police official was aggrieved of inclusion of name of mother of deceased in succession certificate pertaining to compensation amount awarded on death in line of duty---Validity---Compensation granted to a person after his death does not fall within the definition of Tarka---Mother of deceased could not claim any share in compensation amount---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court, excluding name of mother of deceased from succession certificate for amount in question---Revision was allowed accordingly. Jamil Shah for Petitioner. Munir Ahmed Kakar for Respondent No. 1. Allauddin Kakar, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2023. NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, J.--- This petition is directed against the order dated 24th July 2019, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-I Quetta with powers of District Judge Quetta (in revocation application No.04/2016), and order dated 7th August 2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Qetta (in appeal No.02/2020), with the prayer to set aside the orders passed by the courts below and to dismiss respondents Nos. 1, 5 and 6's application for revocation of succession certificate No. 56/2015, dated 19th November 2015.

Summary: (a) Inheritance Law – Right of Heirs ----Inheritance rights in the estate of a deceased Muslim----Constructive possession----Limitation Act, 1908----Scope. The estate of a Muslim, upon his death, devolves upon his legal heirs by operation of law. Each heir retains constructive possession of their share in the estate until partition or lawful transfer. If an heir is deprived of their share in an inheritance mutation, the cause of action arises when they seek their share and it is denied. However, where third-party rights have been created in the inherited property, the limitation period becomes applicable, requiring the claimant heir to establish fraud or ignorance of their rights to invoke an exception under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Cited Cases: Mohammad Boota (decd) v. Mst. Fatima (2023 SCMR 1901) Mst. Parveen (decd) v. Muhammad Pervaiz (2022 SCMR 64) Noor Din (decd) v. Pervaiz Akhtar (2023 SCMR 1928) Ghulam Qasim v. Mst. Razia Begum (PLD 2021 SC 812) Tahsinullah v. Mst. Parveen (decd) (2022 SCMR 346) Lal Din v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1993 SCMR 710) Bashir Ahmad Anjum v. Muhammad Raffique (2021 SCMR 772) Nazir Ahmad v. Abdullah (1997 SCMR 281) (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----S. 18----Effect of fraud in inheritance disputes----Exceptions to limitation period----Scope. Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a claimant heir alleging fraud must demonstrate that they were kept from knowledge of their right to sue due to fraudulent concealment. The limitation period begins from the date the fraud first became known to the “injuriously affected person.” However, if the affected heir does not initiate legal proceedings within the prescribed limitation period upon discovering the fraud, no fresh period of limitation is available to their legal successors. Cited Case: Mst. Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan (2022 SCMR 1009) (c) Limitation in Cases of Third-Party Rights in Inherited Property ----Applicability of limitation where third-party interests have been created----Doctrine of actual vs. constructive denial----Scope. A distinction is made between: (i) cases where an heir is deprived of their rightful share in inheritance at the time of mutation; and (ii) cases where third-party rights have been created in the inherited property. In the former, the limitation period starts when the heir is denied their share. In the latter, where land has been sold to third parties, the limitation period applies, barring claims after its expiration. In the present case, transactions affecting the disputed property took place decades ago, with sales occurring in 1994 and 1997, barring the claimants from seeking redress under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Cited Cases: Haji Muhammad Yunis v. Mst. Farukh Sultan (2022 SCMR 1282) Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) (d) Civil Procedure – Obligation of Courts to Consider Limitation ----S. 3, Limitation Act, 1908----Duty of courts to dismiss time-barred claims regardless of whether limitation is pleaded as a defense----Scope. Courts are bound to dismiss suits, appeals, and applications filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, even if the issue of limitation is not raised by the parties. The appellants’ claim, filed in 2007, was time-barred given that transactions creating third-party interests took place as early as 1994 and 1997. Disposition Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellants’ claim was barred by limitation. The Court reaffirmed that where concurrent findings of fact and law exist, it will not interfere unless exceptional circumstances warrant intervention, which were absent in this case.