Summary: (a) Gift--- ----Oral gift---Essential ingredients---Onus to prove---Exclusion of uneducated female member of the family from her share in inheritance---F emale heirs' inheritable rights must be protected---Shariah and inheritance law protections to female heirs emphasized---Donee's absence from witness box to prove the alleged gift, effect of---Incurable defect---Fatal defect under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---The instant matter brought into focus the jurisprudential and evidentiary imperatives surrounding the alleged oral transfer of immovable property by way of gift, particularly where such a claim was advanced to circumvent the vested inheritance rights of a female legal heir---Petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant were real siblings and the only legal heirs of their deceased father, who passed away on 08.10.1998---The dispute concerned agricultural land (the "Suit Property")---The petitioner/plaintiff (sister of respondent/defendant who was the beneficiary of the gift) filed a suit on 24.02.2011 seeking cancellation of mutation No. 600 dated 29.04.1998, recorded as a gift in favor of her brother (respondent/defendant) and alleged that the gift mutation was obtained fraudulently and without knowledge, consent, or valid intention of their deceased father---It was contended by the petitioner that after their father's death, the petitioner trusted her brother's assurance that her share had been included in an inheritance mutation; that she accepted small payments under the impression they were her share of the property income; that upon facing financial hardship and requesting to sell her share, the brother refused and she discovered the alleged mutation of gift; that she had no knowledge of such a gift, asserting it was forged and not in accordance with law---It was the case of the respondent that his claim was firmly anchored in lawful entitlement under a gift dated 18.04.1998 from his father which was made during his life---He alleged that all requirements of a valid gift (offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession) were fulfilled---Held: Present case was a typical case where a woman was deprived of her rightful inheritance under the pretense of an alleged oral gift made by the deceased father to her brother---Such claims were often used by male heirs to exclude female relatives, prompting courts to remain vigilant against fraudulent practices involving oral gifts, which were frequently employed to deny women their legal entitlements---The essential legal requirements for validating such transactions, by now, have been firmly established in our jurisprudence and require no further elaboration---While juxtaposing the facts of the case in hand, High Court was of the opinion that both the courts below had acted illegally and with material irregularity while exercising jurisdiction---The respondent as the principal beneficiary and direct participant in the purported gift was the most vital witness to establish its essential elements, yet he conspicuously chose not to appear before the court, offering no reasonable justification for his absence, and instead relied on the testimony of his son, "TS" (DW-7), who appeared merely as his attorney---In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the unequivocal position in terms of Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, it did not behoove to reason as to how such fatal and inherent defect escaped the attention of both the Courts below---Respondent/defendant's son was in no position to testify on behalf of his father regarding offer and acceptance of gift---The written statement filed by the defendant/respondent did not find mention the presence of DW-7 on the alleged occasion of oral gift, thus, the mandatory ingredients of offer of gift by the donor and acceptance thereof by donee, had gone abegging in this case---Therefore, non-appearance of defendant/respondent was an incurable defect in his quest to prove the gift---Concurrent findings of the courts below fell within the exception of interference for exercising revisional jurisdiction of the court and the same were therefore set aside---The civil revision was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) was decreed as prayed for. (b) Gift--- ----Oral gift---Burden of proof, shifting of---Scope---Burden of proof shifts upon denial of gift---When validity and correctness of a gift transaction is challenged it becomes mandatory and essential for the beneficiary to prove the valid execution of same---Female member of the family deprived by male member of her share in inheritance---In order to prove her case, the petitioner/plaintiff who was deprived by his brother from inheritance of their deceased father, appeared as PW3 and supported the contents of the plaint---She deposed that her deceased father never gifted the suit property to the respondent/defendant (brother of petitioner/plaintiff) and the same was outcome of fraud---She specifically stated that she was never aware of any such transaction---This very statement of the petitioner/plaintiff had clearly shifted the onus of proving onto the respondent/defendant (brother of petitioner/plaintiff) being beneficiary of oral gift which he failed to discharge by shying away from appearance as a witness---The respondent/defendant instead of appearing before the court merely relied on testimony of his son who merely appeared as his father's attorney---It was an unfortunate fact that male members of families deprive their female relatives of their legal entitlement to inheritance and in doing so Sharia and law was violated---Concurrent findings of the courts below fell within the exception of interference for exercising revisional jurisdiction of the court and the same were therefore set aside---The suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff (female legal heir deprived from inheritance) was decreed as prayed for---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ejaz and 2 others v. Mst. Khalida Awan and another 2010 SCMR 342 rel. (c) Gift--- ----Inheritance---Oral gift---Deceptive mechanism to usurp inheritance share of female legal heirs---Proof---Threshold test---Legal standards for validating oral gifts---Scope---In our society there has been an unstoppable bent to invent grotesque devices conceived to deprive daughters, sisters, mothers, widows, orphans etc of their share of inheritance; the 'Oral Gift' being the most fancied of all, employed by unscrupulous male members of the family---It is for this reason that there is overwhelming settled jurisprudence in this country to arrest all such emblems of frauds, forgery, impersonations and uncalled for persuasions, nevertheless, the menace continues---The threshold tests of such transactions are now etched in our jurisprudence as tablet of stone, hardly requiring any further quest, however, if one needs reiteration, following principles be strictly adhered to, particularly in the context of the case in hand: (i) Beneficiary of the impugned transaction of gift/transfer of immovable property(s) bears the heavy onus to prove the transaction; (ii) The beneficiary of a gift has to plead and prove three mandatory ingredients of gift i.e. declaration/offer by the donor, acceptance of gift by the donee; and, delivery of possession under the gift; (iii) The possession of immovable property by one of the siblings/LRs to the exclusion of others will be treated as constructive possession on behalf of all others, unless proved otherwise ; (iv) In case of oral transactions, it is mandatory for a beneficiary of oral transaction to prove the same through positive evidence by supplying mandatory material particulars in the pleadings i.e. the time and date, the venue, and the persons/witnesses in whose presence the alleged transaction was brought about; (v) The oral transaction of transfer of immovable property, be it sale, gift/tamleek, surrender or will etc. has to be proved separately from its incorporation/attestation in revenue record by way of sanctioning of the mutation since a mutation cannot by itself be considered a document of title; (vi) Where a gift, which excluded a legal heir, irrespective of whether such transaction is evidenced by registered deed, the donee is required to prove original transaction and must justify the disinheritance of a legal heir from the estate; (vii) Parties are bound by their pleadings; no amount of evidence can be led beyond the scope of pleadings; and in case any such evidence is brought on record, the Court cannot consider and rely upon the same and has to discard it; (viii) Mere efflux of time does not extinguish the right of inheritance, thus, the question of limitation in case of inheritance and fraud is not attracted and becomes insignificant. Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 276; Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64; Mst. Hayat Bibi and others v. Alamzeb and others 2022 SCMR 13; Islam ud Din (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2016 SCMR 986; Phull Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima 2016 SCMR 1225; Peer Baksh through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others 2016 SCMR 1417; Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others 2015 SCMR 1; Ibrahim Kamal v. Mst. Malooka Bibi and others 2012 SCMR 1; Khaliqdad Khan and others v. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon and others 2010 SCMR 1370; Bilal Hussain Shah and another v. Dilawar Shah PLD 2018 SC 698; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1986; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others v. Shah Faisal Wahab and others 2023 SCMR 1642; Mst. Tahira Samina and others v. Javed Saeed Tariq and others 2024 SCMR 24; Mst. Saadia v. Mst. Gul Bibi 2016 SCMR 662; Khalida Idrees and others v. Anas Farooq Chaudhary and others PLD 2018 Lah. 819; Mst. Rasheeda Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others 2008 SCMR 1384; Islam-ud-Din through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan through L.Rs. and others 2016 SCMR 986; Mst. Shafqat Parveen v. Muhammad Iftikhar Amjad and others 2012 SCMR 1602; Rehmat Noor v. Zulqarnain 2023 SCMR 1645; Syed Ahmad v. Ali Akbar and others 2021 SCMR 743; Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others 2016 SCMR 910; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139; Muhammad Shafiq Ullah and others v. Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 763; Saddaruddin (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 642; Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others 2021 SCMR 605; Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 73; Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 SC 338; Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd. Karachi v. Ravi Steel Company, Lahore PLD 2020 SC 324; Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sakina Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 1021; Moiz Abbas v. Mrs Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74; Naveed Akram and others v. Muhammad Anwar 2018 SCMR 1095; Allah Ditta and others v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others 2017 SCMR 402; Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 1360; Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 1300; Mst. Brikhna v. Faiz Ullah Khan and others 2020 SCMR 1681; Fazal Ellahi (deceased) through its Legal Heirs v. Mst. Zainab Bibi 2019 SCMR 1930; Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others's case 2019 SCMR 567; Phul Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima 2016 SCMR 1225; Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Shafiq and 9 others 2007 SCMR 1773; Haji Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Ahmed and others 2007 SCMR 1961; Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others 2007 SCMR 729; Aurangzeb through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCMR 236; Mst. Janntan and others v. Mst. Taggi through L.Rs. and others PLD 2006 SC 332; Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 SC 688; Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel un Nisa and 5 others 2001 SCMR 338; Muhammad Ishaq and another v. Mst. Gazala Riaz and 8 others 1997 SCMR 974; Mst. Noor Fatima and another v. Begum Bibi and another 1990 SCMR 629; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139; Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914; Combined Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Wali Bhai and others PLD 2016 SC 730; Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21; Messrs Essa Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another 2014 SCMR 922; Mohammad Boota (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Fatima daughter of Gohar Ali and others 2023 SCMR 1901; Noor Din (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Pervaiz Akhtar and others 2023 SCMR 1928; Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLD 2022 SC 353; Syed Kausar Ali Shah and others v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah and others 2022 SCMR 1558; Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85; Muhammad Sharif and others v. MCB Bank Limited and others 2021 SCMR 1158; Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others 2020 SCMR 2046; Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Kilat and others 2020 SCMR 352; Ghulam Farid and another v. Sher Rehman through L.Rs. 2016 SCMR 862; Syed Mehmood Ali Shah v. Zulfiqar Ali and 5 others PLD 2013 SC 364; Messrs Paramount Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Appellate Tribunal and another 2012 SCMR 1860; Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others v. Allah Bachaya and 18 others 2005 SCMR 1447; Muhammad Zubair and others v. Muhammad Sharif 2005 SCMR 1217; Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212; Khan Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others 2017 SCMR 1476; Muhammad Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others 2015 SCMR 869; Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others 2007 SCMR 729; Arshad Khan v. Mst. Resham Jan and others 2005 SCMR 1859; Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman and others PLD 2002 SC 677; Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others 2014 SCMR 801 and Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 rel. Mst. Nagina Begum v. Mst. Tahzim Akhtar and others 2009 SCMR 623 ref. (d) Gift--- ----Oral gift, proof of---Constructive possession, principle of---Scope---Continuous possession by male heir deemed constructive on behalf of sister (female heir)---No presumption of gift merely due to possession of sole male heir---Burden of proof not discharged by mere possession---In a bsence of proof of a valid gift the continuous possession of the respondent/defendant (brother of petitioner/plaintiff) being the only male surviving member of the family was constructive possession on behalf of her sister (petitioner/plaintiff), an uneducated village lady---Possession of the suit property by the only brother of the petitioner/plaintiff lady could not solely confirm the transaction of the impugned gift---Merely because the respondent/defendant (brother) was in possession of the land did not mean, let alone established, that the land was gifted to him, however, it itself confirmed that he took advantage of his gender and position and made the best out of the vulnerability of a dependent female---Civil revision was allowed and suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff (female heir) was decreed. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VI, R.7---Oral gift---Proof---Failure to plead essential ingredients of oral gift---Oral gift claims must disclose time, place, and witnesses in the pleadings---Written statement lacking particulars of oral gift--- No mention of date, time, venue or witnesses of the alleged transaction---Inherent pleading defects cannot be cured by subsequent evidence---Evidence beyond pleadings is impermissible---Defendant's (beneficiary's) failure to plead core elements of gift rendered the entire gift transaction unsustainable in law---A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant/respondent led to only one inescapable conclusion that the defendant had failed to plead the necessary ingredients of oral transaction of gift---Neither the specific venue of the oral transaction of gift was mentioned nor its date, time and witnesses had been spelt out---So far as the date of impugned oral transaction was concerned, it further destroyed the case of the defendant/respondent; para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement pleaded that on the day of transaction of oral gift i.e. 18.04.1998 rappat roznamcha waqiati No. 371 was recorded by the Patwari of revenue estate which made it abundantly clear that no amount of evidence could cure this inherent defect of pleadings, which conspicuously failed to put forth the name of the witnesses of the oral transaction, and the exact date, time and venue thereof---Statements of defendant's son were beyond the scope of pleadings and in terms of O. VI, R. 7 of C.P.C., no amount of evidence could be led or considered which was beyond pleadings---The suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff (female legal heir deprived from inheritance) was decreed as prayed for---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Islamic law--- ----Inheritance---Oral gift---Relinquishment of inheritance share by vulnerable female heirs in favour of male heirs---Such relinquishment of inheritance share by female heirs is contrary to public policy and Shariah---Strict burden to prove voluntary relinquishment by female legatee---Advantageous familial positions cannot be used to extract implied consent from vulnerable females to relinquish their inheritance share---Inheritance rights of female heirs must be jealously guarded---In the present case the plaintiff's/petitioner's entitlement in her father's estate was a common ground; being a female in a muslim household, it was her due, conferred by Divine Law, recognized by the law of the land; it was so ordained in Sura Al-Nisa (4/10)---Given the preponderance of conferment, such a right, rooted into personal law, has to be jealously guarded, therefore, a heavy onus is cast upon the claimant to demonstrate that a female legatee had parted with her entitlement by choice and for considerations, consciously, without duress or uncalled for persuasions by those placed qua her in advantageous positions---Male heirs frequently resorted to fraud and other tactics to deprive female heirs from their share of inheritance---Such deprivation caused suffering to those deprived, and it also unnecessarily taxed the judicial system of the country, resulting in needless waste of resources---Each and every day that a male heir deprived a female heir was also an abomination because it contravened what has been ordained by Almighty Allah---Civil revision was allowed and suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff (female heir) was decreed. Mst. Aksar Jan and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 2025 SCMR 88; Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1; Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat and others 2020 SCMR 352; Tahsimullah v. Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2022 SCMR 346; Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Muhammad pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64 and Ghulam Qasim and others v. Mst. Razia Begum and others PLD 2021 SC 812 rel. (g) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S.42---Oral gift---Mutation---Proof and scope---Mutation alone does not confer legal title to immovable property---No evidence existed of the alleged oral gift transaction---Having concluded that there was absolutely no evidence regarding transaction of impugned gift and that a mutation could not by itself be considered a document of title, it was evident that even the impugned mutation had not been proved in terms of S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, which required that such mutation had to be presented and sanctioned in the common assembly (Jalsa-e-Aam) of the estate concerned---Civil revision was allowed and suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff (female heir) was decreed. Mian Tariq Hussain for Petitioner. Respondent proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.02.2023. Khawaja Mohsin Abbas, Additional Advocate General for Respondent (on Court's call). Date of hearing: 24th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Property Law: --- Islamic Law of Gift --- Validity of gift to a minor --- Possession requirement --- The suit was filed for a declaration of ownership of 909 acres of land allegedly gifted by the father (Syed Noor Ahmed Shah) to his daughter (Mst. Surriya Begum) in 1959. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decree, citing lack of proof of possession by the donee. However, the High Court restored the trial court's decision, recognizing that under Islamic law, when a father gifts property to his minor daughter who resides with him, actual physical possession is not required for a valid gift. Held, in such cases, strict proof of possession is unnecessary. Reliance placed on Kaneez Bibi v. Sher Muhammad (PLD 1991 SC 466) and Riaz Ullah Khan v. Asghar Ali (2004 SCMR 1701). (b) Land Reforms & Declaratory Admissions: --- Martial Law Regulation No.64, 1959 --- Effect of declaration before Land Reforms Authorities --- The declaration made by Syed Noor Ahmed Shah on 13.04.1959 to the Land Reforms Authorities stated that he had gifted 909 acres (9,997 PIUs) to his daughter. Held, such declarations are judicially recognized as decisive steps in land reforms and constitute an admission of the gift, making it legally binding. The absence of revocation by the donor during his lifetime reinforces the validity of the gift. Reliance placed on Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner (PLD 1990 SC 99) and Muzammil Shah v. Deputy Land Commissioner (PLD 2001 Peshawar 92). (c) Inheritance & Challenge to Gift: --- Effect of gift on inheritance --- Burden of proof on challengers --- After the demise of Syed Noor Ahmed Shah, inheritance mutation was attested in 1994, including the gifted land. However, none of the other heirs challenged the 1959 declaration or the Land Reforms records acknowledging the gift. Held, the failure of the other heirs to dispute the gift at any material stage bars them from challenging it now, especially since the government and land reforms authorities also accepted the declaration without objection. (d) Judicial Review of Factual Findings: --- High Court’s role in revisional jurisdiction --- Scope of appellate interference --- The appellate court wrongly set aside the trial court’s decree based on the lack of possession, ignoring settled principles of Islamic law and land reforms regulations. Held, the High Court rightly restored the trial court’s judgment, as it was based on documentary evidence from official land records. (e) Disposition: Appeal dismissed. High Court judgment upheld. No order as to costs.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 17.05.2012, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in C.R. No. 53 of 2002). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), S. 2-A---Suit for declaration and injunction---Mutation of inheritance---Limited estate---Owner through will---Appellants / plaintiffs claimed share in suit property on the plea that respondents / defendant had become owners on the basis of will executed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, in year 1934---Suit was decreed in favour of appellants / plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit---Validity---Creation of life interests for enjoyment of usufruct of properties upon death of a male holder were done away with and were subjected to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962---By virtue of section 2-A of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 limited estates had been done away with retrospective application of such provision---Predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants became the absolute owner of property in question---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Mullah's Principles of Mohammaden Law by Mr. Justice Hidayatullah; Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, A Code of Muslim Personal Law, Volume II, page 196; Haider v. Murad PLD 2012 SC 501 and Mst. Farida Khatoon v. Dr. Masood Ahmed Butt 2009 SCMR 464 ref. Sohail Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3). Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 --- Ss. 2 & 2‑A; Shariat Application Act, 1948— Limited life‑estates under Punjab custom—retrospective abolition—Section 2‑A (inserted 1983) declares that male heirs who took agricultural land under custom before 15‑3‑1948 are deemed absolute owners as if inheritance had opened under Islamic law; conversely, a female donee holding a “limited” estate under earlier custom becomes full owner and the property thereafter devolves according to Sharia. Held, mutation No. 1616 (20‑05‑1990) in favour of Mst. Ghulam Zohra’s husband and children was lawful; appellants, claiming through the collateral Mohammad Yousaf, acquired no share. Cited cases: Haider v. Murad PLD 2012 SC 501; Mst. Farida Khatoon v. Dr. Masood Ahmed Butt 2009 SCMR 464. (b) Islamic Law—Wills (waṣiyyat)—Power of testamentary disposition— (i) A Muslim may bequeath only up to one‑third of his estate without heirs’ consent (Hadaya; Fatawa‑e‑Alamgiri). (ii) A condition that the legatee shall hold merely for life “until death” derogates from absolute ownership and is void; the bequest operates as an outright transfer. Applying these principles, Kala Khan’s 1934 will in favour of his daughter Mst. Ghulam Zohra, though couched as a life interest, vested absolute title in her; she could validly alienate the property inter vivos and, on death in 1988, it devolved exclusively upon her heirs (respondents Nos. 2‑5). (c) Customary succession—Ancestral versus acquired land—Onus— Custom applies only to ancestral property. Appellants neither pleaded nor proved that the land was ancestral; documentary record showed it was self‑acquired by the testator. Customary reversionary rights, therefore, could not be invoked. (d) Law of Evidence—Pedigree‑table—Probative value— A pedigree table (Exh. P‑16, Exh. D‑6) is at best a weak piece of evidence and must be corroborated. Failure to adduce independent proof that “Faqeer son of Qasim” (the nearer collateral) pre‑deceased the propositus fatally undermined appellants’ claim that Muhammad Yousaf was the last surviving male heir. (e) Civil litigation—Appellate and revisional review—Scope— Concurrent findings of the first appellate court and High Court that appellants had no title were based on correct appreciation of evidence and law; Supreme Court will not disturb such findings absent a jurisdictional defect or miscarriage of justice. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dated 17‑05‑2012 and appellate decree dated 22‑10‑2001 affirmed; trial‑court decree set aside.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 12(2)---Fraud and misrepresentation---Scope and standard of proof---Application under S. 12(2), CPC challenging judgment on the ground of alleged fraud due to non-disclosure of legal heirs---Maintainability---Respondent/petitioner sought declaration of ownership based on a gift mutation in his favor by deceased donor Muhammad Aameen---Applicants (daughters of deceased) claimed they were deprived of inheritance due to non-disclosure of their existence during the litigation---Held, that for an application under S. 12(2), CPC to succeed, applicants must establish that (i) there was deliberate suppression of material facts; and (ii) such suppression led to an erroneous judgment prejudicing their rights---In the present case, deceased donor actively contested the suit and subsequently acknowledged the validity of the gift mutation before the Appellate Court---Legal heirs cannot challenge the gift transaction executed during the donor’s lifetime on grounds of inheritance, as the property ceased to be part of his estate at the time of his demise---Mere non-mentioning of some legal heirs does not constitute fraud unless it demonstrably alters the fundamental basis of judicial decision---Doctrine of Allegans Contraria Non Est Audiendus applied; the donor’s later affidavit contradicting prior judicial statements was of no legal effect.Cited Cases:• Mst. Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan 2022 SCMR 1009(b) Gift under Islamic Law----Transfer of ownership through gift---Effect on inheritance claims---Gift of property by a living person is a valid transaction and precludes inheritance claims upon donor’s demise---Applicants contended that deceased donor intended to distribute property among all legal heirs but failed to contest the gift mutation during his lifetime---Held, that under Islamic law, a valid gift transfers ownership immediately, and once completed, donor cannot reclaim the property or modify its legal consequences---Applicants, as legal heirs, could not claim inheritance in property already gifted away---Applicants’ claim was, therefore, misconceived as the gifted property did not form part of the donor’s estate at the time of his death.(c) Estoppel and Locus Standi----Judicial estoppel---Locus standi of legal heirs to challenge a concluded gift transaction---Donor actively participated in litigation, acknowledged execution of gift, and did not challenge adverse judicial findings during his lifetime---Held, that where a donor himself contests and later concedes the validity of a gift, his legal heirs cannot subsequently challenge the transaction under the pretext of inheritance or fraud---Applicants could only step into the donor’s shoes, and as he did not challenge the decree, they lacked locus standi to do so.Cited Cases:• Mst. Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan 2022 SCMR 1009(d) Civil Procedure---Judicial Integrity----Presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings---Scope of challenge---Affidavit contradicting prior judicial testimony---Evidentiary value---Held, that judicial proceedings are presumed to be conducted fairly and with due process---Mere allegation of fraud or collusion without cogent, unimpeachable evidence cannot vitiate court findings---Affidavit sworn by deceased donor after several years did not override prior judicial admissions acknowledging the gift---No grounds existed to invoke S. 12(2), CPC to set aside the decree.---- Disposition: Application under S. 12(2), CPC dismissed as not maintainable; claim of fraud not substantiated by evidence; inheritance claim not applicable to property validly gifted before donor’s demise.

Summary: (a) Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 — S. 27 — Nominee vis-à-vis legal heir — Scope Nomination of a person under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, does not confer proprietary rights upon the nominee after the death of a society member. Legal heirs of the deceased member have superior rights under the law of succession. In the present case, the suit land was originally allotted to Hameed Khan under the Co-operative Farming Scheme. Upon his death, his nominee, Anwar, was entered in the society records, and after Anwar’s death, the petitioner Matloob claimed proprietary rights as his nominee. The High Court held that nomination merely conferred the right to receive money or benefits from the society but did not substitute inheritance rights under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1948. Held, a nominee could not supplant the legal heirs of the original allottee under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, and the proprietary rights should devolve upon the legal heirs of Hameed Khan. Cited Cases: Mst. Amtul Habib and others v. Mst. Musarrat Parveen and others (1974 SCMR 185) Fazal Shah v. Muhammad Din and others (1990 SCMR 868) Manzoor Ahmad v. Mst. Salman Bibi and others (1998 SCMR 388) Muhammad Bakhsh v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima (2007 SCMR 1227) (b) Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1948 — Inheritance — Legal heirs' entitlement Nomination under a co-operative society’s byelaws does not affect inheritance rights under Shariah. Petitioner Matloob, being a nominee, could not inherit the suit land as the proprietary rights vested in the legal heirs of Hameed Khan by operation of law. The High Court correctly applied the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1948, which mandated that upon the death of a member, his estate devolves upon his heirs in accordance with Islamic inheritance principles. (c) Administration of Justice — Fraud — Effect of fraud on property rights Petitioner Matloob was not born at the time of the original allotment in 1948, yet he claimed membership rights in the society. The Court found that incorrect entries in the society records were manipulated to deprive the legal heirs of Hameed Khan. Fraud vitiates all proceedings. Held, no proprietary rights could be conferred upon the petitioner based on fraudulent claims, and the petition was dismissed accordingly. Disposition: Petition dismissed — Leave to appeal refused. This version keeps the legal tone intact while correcting formatting issues. Let me know if you need further refinements!

Summary: (a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) ----Ss. 372, 376 & 383—Revocation of succession certificate—Scope and grounds—Certificate granted to widow of deceased police official (declared “Shaheed”) challenged by his mother and minor daughters—Earlier revocation dismissed but remanded by High Court for reconsideration of parties’ Sharai shares—Held, subsequent “Sharai Fatwa” relied upon by trial court failed to distinguish between property owned by deceased during his lifetime and posthumous governmental compensation—Compensation granted after martyrdom is not part of *Tarka* (estate) and thus not heritable property—Mother of deceased not entitled to any share therein—Trial and appellate courts misconstrued the legal position; orders of revocation unsustainable. (b) Islamic Law ----Inheritance—Tarka—Definition—Assets accruing after death of a person (such as ex-gratia or compensation payments by the Government) do not constitute *Tarka*; only property existing during the deceased’s lifetime passes to heirs—Sharai Fatwa dated 1-6-2023 reaffirmed that compensation after martyrdom falls outside inheritance—Earlier Fatwa set aside as it was issued without full factual context. (c) Minor’s property—Protection of rights ----Where minors’ shares already secured through a property purchased by their maternal uncle (though unregistered), Court recorded his undertaking to safeguard minors’ legal and legitimate rights—Direction issued accordingly. (d) Succession proceedings—Remand—Scope ----When earlier remand order required framing of issues and ascertainment of Sharai shares, compliance must remain confined to those directions; trial court could not extend its determination beyond scope of inheritance law and include non-heritable compensatory grants. Disposition --- Civil revision allowed. Orders dated 24-07-2019 (revocation allowed) and 07-08-2021 (appeal dismissed) set aside. Succession Certificate No. 56/2015 dated 19-11-2015 issued to the petitioner (widow of Shaheed) restored. Mother not entitled to share in post-death compensation. Maternal uncle of minors held responsible for protection of their shares. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Inheritance Law –– Death of legal heir during lifetime of propositus –– Right of substitution –– Entitlement of grandchildren to ancestral property –– Application of amendment to Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Plaintiffs, being legal heirs of deceased son (Saleh Muhammad), claimed inheritance from property of Raza Muhammad who had allegedly distributed land among his four sons during his lifetime––Held, since Saleh Muhammad died during the lifetime of his father, the plaintiffs could not inherit directly from their grandfather under prevailing law––Amendment to Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (inserted via Act of 2021) allowing children of deceased son to inherit was not retrospective in nature––Therefore, plaintiffs could not benefit from said statutory amendment––Inheritance devolved only upon surviving sons of propositus at the time of his death. → Principle: No substitution right unless specifically recognized under applicable law or made retrospective by statute. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 –– S. 147 –– Private partition –– Legal sanctity –– Requirement of official mutation- Although it was pleaded that Raza Muhammad had orally partitioned his land during his lifetime, the same was never confirmed through legal mutation under Section 147 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967––Held, oral/private partition without attestation through revenue authorities lacks legal sanctity––Possession-based claims arising from such unconfirmed partition carry no enforceable title in declaratory suit. → Private arrangements without formal revenue recognition are legally ineffective. (c) Civil Procedure –– Declaration suit –– Improvements in property –– Effect on ownership –– Admission by one defendant- Plaintiffs claimed to have made improvements in disputed land and relied on admission by one defendant (Ghulam Sarwar)––Held, improvements alone do not confer ownership––Likewise, admission by one defendant does not bind others or grant title unless followed by transfer through recognized legal mode––Plaintiffs may pursue transfer from the admitting defendant separately, but declaration of ownership cannot be granted on that basis alone. (d) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 –– S. 100 –– Second appeal –– Concurrent findings of fact –– Interference by High Court –– Scope- Findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts concurrently held that plaintiffs had no claim to inherited land––No misreading, non-reading of evidence, or legal error shown––Held, High Court in second appeal will not disturb concurrent findings unless there is clear miscarriage of justice, legal misapplication, or disregard of material evidence––None established in present case. → Reliance placed on 2022 SCR 416 –– Interference in second appeal permissible only under exceptional circumstances. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; concurrent findings upheld; no legal error, statutory violation, or factual misappreciation found.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----S. 100—Second appeal—Scope—Concurrent findings of fact—Reversal by second appellate court—Principle—Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction based on alleged lifetime partition by propositus—Plaintiffs claimed entitlement to land through deceased father who predeceased propositus—Trial and appellate courts concurrently held that since father of plaintiffs died in lifetime of original owner, plaintiffs were not entitled to inherit property—Private partition pleaded by plaintiffs not confirmed under S. 147 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967—Held, concurrent findings of fact based on evidence could not be disturbed in second appeal unless grave misreading, non-reading, or violation of law is shown—No legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect established—Appeal dismissed. Cited Case: • 2022 SCR 416 (b) Inheritance Law: ----Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended by Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2021—Prospective vs retrospective application—Scope—Children of predeceased son—Held, amendment conferring inheritance rights upon children of deceased son applies prospectively only—Provision does not aid plaintiffs in current proceedings where claim pertains to events prior to enactment—Statutory language explicitly provides for prospective enforcement. (c) Declaratory Relief: ----Claim based on possession and improvements—Legal effect—Held, mere possession or expenditure on improvements does not create ownership rights in absence of valid title—Admission by one co-defendant not sufficient to establish ownership in face of contesting claims by others—Proper remedy lies in formal transfer through recognized legal modes. Appeal dismissed.

Summary: -----Quote: Articles 76 & 77 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: The law has provided a remedy for proving a document through secondary evidence which is an exception to general rule and only meant for the purpose to cater a genuine need and hardship. It cannot be allowed in routine or without complying with the requirements mentioned under section 65 of the Evidence Act of 1872 or Article 76 and 77 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The contents of documents can only be proved through secondary evidence if the conditions mentioned under Article 76 are available, which should be satisfied first. This Article provides an alternate mode and method of proving the document which for various reasons could not be produced. When primary evidence is not available or produced, then law permits secondary evidence which remedy is designed for the protection of person who despite best efforts unable from the circumstances beyond his control to produce the primary evidence. Where a person is unable to bring the original document despite all reasonable efforts, the court is competent to admit secondary evidence but at the same time, this should also to be kept in mind that this benefit is not intended for a person who intentionally or with some ulterior motives or sinister objects refused to produce the document in court which is in his possession, power and control. Pre-requisites of gift: When and at which particular place, the declaration of the gift i.e., offer and acceptance was taken place, has not been proved by the petitioners/ defendants. Reliance is placed on the cases of “Muhammad Asghar and others Vs. Hakam Bibi through L. Rs and others” (2015 CLC 719(Lahore) “Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and another Vs Muhammad Arif and others” (2005 SCMR 135). Even, it has not been proved on record by the petitioners that the erstwhile predecessor Mukamil Shah has divested himself from the possession of the property, thus, they have failed to prove the alleged gift. -----Background: The petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the District Judge, Chitral Lower’s decision dated 03.08.2023, which dismissed their appeal against the Senior Civil Judge’s judgment on 09.06.2021. The Senior Civil Judge had ruled in favor of the respondents (plaintiffs) in a suit filed in 2014, seeking a declaration of their shares in the legacy of Mukammal Shah. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Mujeeb-Ur-Rahman (grandson of Mukammal Shah), claimed inheritance rights to the disputed property. The petitioners resisted the suit, citing prior gifts of the property by Mukammal Shah and invoking res judicata due to a previous suit by Mst. Sultania Bibi, also a legal heir, which was dismissed. -----Issues: 1- Validity of Gift Deed: Whether the disputed property was legally gifted by Mukammal Shah to certain family members before his death, thereby excluding other heirs from inheritance claims. -----2- Application of Res Judicata: Whether the dismissal of a prior suit by another legal heir, Mst. Sultania Bibi, on a similar claim constitutes constructive res judicata, preventing the current plaintiffs from challenging the ownership. -----3- Right to Inheritance: Whether the respondents, as legal heirs of Mujeeb-Ur-Rahman, are entitled to a share of the property despite the alleged gift deeds. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Gift Deed Validity: The petitioners argued that the property was gifted by Mukammal Shah during his lifetime, evidenced by a deed recorded in 1965 with the Judicial Council. They contended that this deed validated the transfer of property, which was corroborated by testimony. However, the court emphasized that secondary evidence and Judicial Council records must be thoroughly validated, especially since the original witnesses to the deed were unavailable. --Constructive Res Judicata: The court examined the previous suit by Mst. Sultania Bibi and found that while her suit was dismissed, the petitioners’ reliance on this outcome as constructive res judicata was weak. The dismissal did not conclusively resolve the ownership question, particularly for other heirs who were not parties to the original suit. --Inheritance Rights of Respondents: The court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, affirming that the respondents, as legitimate heirs, had a right to claim their shares unless valid documentation proving the complete transfer of property could be produced. The petitioners failed to substantiate their argument of exclusive ownership through the gift deed conclusively. ------Citations/Precedents: --Res Judicata Principle: Dismissal of a prior suit on inheritance does not necessarily preclude future claims by different heirs if they were not parties to the earlier suit. --Inheritance Rights under Islamic Law: Legal heirs retain their rights to inheritance unless there is definitive proof of legal transfer, including an irrevocable gift with valid witnesses and documentation. --Secondary Evidence Admissibility: Secondary evidence, such as Judicial Council records, may be admitted but must meet strict criteria for authenticity and relevance, especially in the absence of primary witnesses.