Summary: '' Writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973--Para 66 of Muhammaden Law--- Principle of Return (Radd)--- If a male Muslim dies issueless leaving behind a widow and one or more sisters. His estate would devolve upon his heirs/sharers, residuary and distant kindred as the case may be. After satisfaction of their share the rest of estate would go to sharer (sister) as principle of return (Radd). Writ petition against grant of share to the residuary stands dismissed.'' ----- The petitioners, heirs of a deceased Muslim named Muhammad Asghar, challenged the inheritance claims made by his paternal cousins. Muhammad Asghar, who owned various properties, died issueless, leaving behind a widow and two sisters. The paternal cousins claimed inheritance rights as residuary heirs. The inheritance mutation had been granted to Asghar’s widow and sisters, but the cousins contested this, arguing that as residuary heirs, they were also entitled to a share in his estate. Lower revenue authorities upheld the cousins' claims, granting them shares as residuary heirs. ----- Issues: -----1) Are the paternal cousins of an issueless Muslim entitled to inherit as residuary heirs? ----2) Did the revenue authorities err in including the cousins as heirs in the inheritance mutation? -------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the revenue authorities' decisions to include the paternal cousins as residuary heirs. According to Islamic inheritance principles, if an issueless Muslim dies without a male sharer, the residue of the estate after satisfying the shares of the "sharers" (widow and sisters, in this case) passes to the available residuaries, including paternal cousins. Thus, since Muhammad Asghar and his sister Nasreen Akhtar died issueless and without a male sharer, their paternal cousins were entitled to inherit as residuary heirs. The court cited Islamic law provisions and relevant Pakistani inheritance law principles to conclude that the Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue, correctly applied the law in recognizing the cousins' rights. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal errors or jurisdictional defects in the revenue decisions. ------- Citations/Precedents: Mst. Shah Jahan Begum through Legal Heirs vs. Zafar Ahmed and others (PLD 2018 Lahore 426) Muhammadan Law by F.D. Mullah, Para 61 and 66

Summary: The petitioner, Mst. Razia Begum, filed an application for the issuance of a succession certificate after the death of her son, Muhammad Jahangir Khan, who had a life insurance policy worth Rs. 10,00,000. The petitioner, as the mother of the deceased, claimed her rightful share (1/6th) of the insurance policy. However, the insurance policy named the respondent, Mst. Sana Mukhtar (the deceased's wife), as the nominee. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application and directed the insurance company to pay the entire amount to the nominee (respondent). The petitioner appealed, but the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. As a result, the petitioner filed the current civil revision petition. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the proceeds of an insurance policy are considered part of the deceased's inheritance ("Tarka"). ----- 2) Whether a nominee can exclude other legal heirs of the deceased from receiving a share of the insurance policy. ----- 3) Whether the nominee acts as a trustee or administrator, responsible for distributing the insurance proceeds among all legal heirs. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Proceeds of Insurance Policy as "Tarka": The court ruled that the proceeds of an insurance policy fall under the definition of "Tarka" and should be treated as part of the deceased’s estate. The court emphasized that an insurance policy proceeds are inheritable assets and must be distributed according to Islamic inheritance laws. It was established that the insurance policy proceeds do not solely belong to the nominee but are subject to division among all legal heirs. ----- Role of the Nominee: The court held that the nominee, under Section 72 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, is merely a person authorized to collect the insurance proceeds. The nominee acts as a trustee or administrator and does not inherit the policy's proceeds exclusively. The nominee’s responsibility is to distribute the proceeds according to Islamic inheritance laws. The court emphasized that the concept of a nominee is alien to Islamic law, which mandates that inheritance be distributed among all legal heirs. ----- Decision: The court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and held that the petitioner (mother of the deceased) is entitled to her share of the insurance proceeds. The trial court was directed to issue a succession certificate in accordance with Islamic law, ensuring that all legal heirs receive their rightful shares. The court concluded that the insurance policy proceeds form part of the deceased’s estate ("Tarka") and should be distributed according to Sharia law. The nominee is only a trustee and not the sole beneficiary of the policy. ----- Citations/Precedents: Mst. Amtul Habib and Others v. Mst. Musarat Parveen and Others (PLD 1974 SC 185) Malik Safdar Ali Khan v. Public at Large and Others (2004 SCMR 1219) Mst. Ameeran Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and Others (2005 SCMR 512) Muhammad Umar v. IGI and Others (2023 CLD 420) Mirza Muhammad Ameen, etc. v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1982 FSC 143) Wafaqi Hakoomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas (PLD 1991 SC 731)

Summary: The case revolves around the inheritance of Shah Jehan, who passed away on 17 August 1988. After his death, Inheritance Mutation No. 1164 was attested on 31 July 1997, which included his daughters as legal heirs. The petitioners, who are the brothers of Shah Jehan’s daughters, filed a suit seeking to exclude their sisters from the inheritance, claiming that Shah Jehan had given them dowry and gifts during his lifetime, which, according to them, should exclude the daughters from inheriting his estate. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 15 September 2010, and the appeal was also dismissed on 25 January 2011. The petitioners then filed a civil revision, which was also dismissed by the Peshawar High Court on 23 April 2012. Unsatisfied with these outcomes, the petitioners brought their case to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether Shah Jehan’s daughters should be excluded from inheritance due to alleged gifts and dowry given to them during his lifetime. ----- 2) Whether the petitioners' claim aligns with Islamic Shariah and Pakistani law regarding inheritance. ----- 3) Whether the petitioners were justified in retaining possession of their sisters’ share of the estate. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----- Exclusion of Daughters from Inheritance: The Supreme Court unequivocally rejected the petitioners’ argument that the daughters should be excluded from inheritance due to the gifts and dowry given to them. The Court emphasized that this contention was completely against Islamic Shariah and Pakistani law. Under Islamic inheritance principles, daughters are entitled to a fixed share of their father’s estate, and the petitioners' argument had no legal basis. ----- Frivolous Litigation: The Court strongly criticized the petitioners for engaging in frivolous litigation for decades, solely aimed at depriving their sisters of their rightful inheritance. It noted that such actions are intolerable, especially when vulnerable individuals, particularly females, are deprived of their legal rights. The Court expressed dismay at the lack of deterrent measures such as the imposition of substantial costs in previous proceedings, which allowed the petitioners to continue pursuing their baseless claims. ----- Retention of Possession: The Court pointed out that the petitioners had unlawfully retained possession of the daughters’ share in the property for decades, further aggravating the injustice. The Court directed the revenue authorities to ensure that the daughters' rightful shares are recorded and distributed according to Shariah. ----- Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition with costs of five hundred thousand rupees to be paid by the petitioners. This amount is to be deposited with the relevant revenue authority within three months and distributed among those deprived of their inheritance. If the amount is not deposited, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The revenue authorities were further directed to ensure the proper distribution of Shah Jehan’s estate according to Shariah law, and a compliance report was to be submitted to the Member of the Board of Revenue. ----- Citations/Precedents: The Court cited Islamic Shariah law regarding inheritance, which grants daughters a fixed share in the estate. The petitioners’ claim was dismissed as a violation of established inheritance laws in Pakistan and Shariah principles.

Summary: The case concerns a dispute over the succession of the estate of Moulvi Abdul Sattar, a deceased government employee. Succession applications were filed by the respondents, Yar Muhammad and Mst. Zahida Parveen (claiming to be the son and daughter of the deceased), seeking a succession certificate and letter of administration for the deceased's movable and immovable property. The trial court initially dismissed the applications, and the High Court later reversed this decision. The petitioner, Abdul Fateh, challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the respondents were adopted children and not legitimate heirs. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the respondents, Yar Muhammad and Mst. Zahida Parveen, are legitimate heirs of the deceased, Moulvi Abdul Sattar. ----- 2) Whether the High Court erred by setting aside the trial court's decision and issuing a succession certificate based on Sections 372 and 278 of the Succession Act, 1925. ----- 3) Whether the matter of legitimacy and parentage should have been addressed through civil litigation rather than a summary succession proceeding. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----- Legitimacy of the Respondents: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the respondents had sufficiently established their legitimacy as the biological children of Moulvi Abdul Sattar through overwhelming oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner failed to provide any substantial evidence or legal basis to challenge their parentage. ----- Succession Certificate Issuance: The Court held that the High Court’s decision to issue a succession certificate was correct under Sections 372 and 278 of the Succession Act, 1925, which provide for a summary procedure. The petitioner could not produce any credible evidence or legal documentation supporting the claim that the respondents were adopted and not legitimate heirs. ----- Civil Jurisdiction for Parentage Dispute: The Court noted that disputes regarding inheritance rights based on paternity or legitimacy should typically be pursued in civil court under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The petitioner's failure to initiate such a civil proceeding weakened his case. Additionally, the petitioner's standing to challenge the respondents’ legitimacy was questioned, as he had no legal character to seek such a declaration. ----- Paternity Challenges: Citing previous rulings, the Court reaffirmed that challenges to paternity must be made within the prescribed time limits under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and only by individuals with a legitimate claim to the deceased’s estate. The petitioner did not meet these criteria. ----- Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to grant the respondents the succession certificate. The petitioner’s allegations were deemed unsupported by sufficient evidence, and his challenge to the legitimacy of the respondents was rejected. ----- Citations/Precedents: Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum and others (PLD 2019 SC 449): Established the legal standards for challenging paternity. Munir Hussain v. Riffat Shamim (2023 SCMR 6): Reaffirmed the procedure for challenging paternity under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Article 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Presumption of correctness attached to official records. Article 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Relevance of public record entries. Article 128 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Timeliness of paternity challenges. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877: Legal character to challenge paternity in civil jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Muslim Personal Law (Inheritance) ----Holy Qur’an—Inheritance shares—Vesting of rights on death Inheritance of a deceased Muslim vests in the legal heirs immediately upon death as ordained by the Holy Qur’an—Any attempt to deprive lawful heirs, particularly widows, through fabricated transactions is void in law—Bogus gift mutations allegedly made shortly before death to defeat inheritance were held to be fraudulent and inconsequential—Widows’ entitlement could not be defeated through such devices. (b) Muslim Personal Law—Relinquishment of inheritance ----Razi Nama (agreement)—Consideration—Free consent Alleged Razi Nama purporting to relinquish a widow’s inheritance was without consideration and not proved to have been executed with knowledge and free consent—Even if assumed to be executed, absence of consideration rendered it legally inconsequential—Court below erred in presuming surrender of inheritance rights without strict proof. (c) Civil Procedure—Appellate and revisional jurisdiction ----Civil Revision—Scope—Remand High Court failed to address the core issue of denial of inheritance and instead focused on peripheral technicalities—Remand on technical grounds after prolonged litigation was wholly unjustified—Where merits are clear, courts must finally decide disputes rather than prolong litigation through remands. (d) Administration of justice—Protection of women’s inheritance rights ----Judicial duty—Vigilance Courts are duty-bound to protect inheritance rights, particularly of females and other vulnerable persons—Practice of depriving women of inheritance through bogus documentation, fraudulent conduct, and collusion with revenue officials and advocates strongly deprecated—Such conduct must be curbed and deterrent costs imposed. (e) Costs—Abuse of process ----Deterrent costs Petitioners employed fake documents and fraudulent tactics, dragging a simple inheritance dispute for twenty-five years—Held, such litigants must not benefit from procedural technicalities—Substantial costs imposed to deter abuse of process. Cited Principles: • Inheritance rights of Muslim heirs vest immediately on death • Relinquishment of inheritance requires free consent and consideration • Fraud vitiates all transactions (g) Disposition — Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Judgment and orders of the High Court in Civil Revision No. 100 of 2010 set aside—Judgment and decree dated 16-01-2010 of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi restored—Petitioners directed to pay Rs.500,000/- as costs to respondent widow within three months, recoverable as arrears of land revenue in default—Revenue authorities directed to immediately distribute estate of deceased in accordance with Islamic Shariah and submit compliance report. ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Summary: Background: This civil revision petition was filed by Mafaiza Begum challenging the judgments of the Civil Judge (06.04.2010) and the Additional District Judge (12.02.2011), which had decreed a suit for declaration filed by Ghazwana Perveen (Respondent No.1). Ghazwana claimed a 1/3rd share in the estate of her grandfather, Muhammad Yar, as the daughter of his predeceased son, Ehsan Ullah. The petitioner (Mafaiza Begum) was Muhammad Yar's daughter, and she, along with the legal heirs of Muhammad Yar’s brother, Muhammad Inayat, opposed Ghazwana’s claim. ---- Issues: 1) Whether Respondent No.1 (Ghazwana Perveen) was entitled to a 1/3rd share of the estate of her grandfather, Muhammad Yar, instead of the 1/6th share recorded in the disputed mutations. ---2) Whether the petitioner could raise a new issue at the revisional stage regarding her share of the residue from Ehsan Ullah’s inheritance, excluding Muhammad Yar's brothers. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Entitlement to 1/3rd Share: The court held that Respondent No.1, as the daughter of Ehsan Ullah (the predeceased son of Muhammad Yar), was entitled to inherit a 1/3rd share of Muhammad Yar’s estate under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Ehsan Ullah’s share (2/3rd) would devolve onto his children, and since Ghazwana was his only daughter, she was entitled to 1/2 of Ehsan Ullah’s share, which translates to 1/3rd of the entire estate of Muhammad Yar. The court found the challenged mutations, which recorded her share as 1/6th, to be illegal and set them aside. ---- Petitioner’s New Issue: The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that after giving Ghazwana her 1/3rd share, the remaining 1/3rd share of Ehsan Ullah should devolve upon her as his real sister, excluding Muhammad Yar's brothers. The court noted that this issue was never raised in the pleadings or during the trial, nor was any evidence presented to support this claim. Since the petitioner had earlier supported the disputed mutations in her written statement and had not raised this issue in the first appeal, the court barred her from raising a new issue at the revisional stage. The revision petition was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld. --- Citations/Precedents: Mst. Zainab v. Kamal Khan, PLD 1990 SC 1051 Established the principle that the estate of a deceased grandparent would devolve onto the heirs of a predeceased child in proportion to the share the child would have inherited if alive. Mukhtar Ahmad v. Mst. Rasheeda Bibi, 2003 SCMR 1664 Interpreted Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to protect the rights of grandchildren to inherit what their parent would have inherited. Mian Mazhar Ali v. Tahir Sarfraz, PLD 2011 Lahore 23 Affirmed that the share of a predeceased child passes to their descendants under Section 4 of the Ordinance, but the other heirs of the deceased are not excluded from their shares.

Summary: Background: Amtal Sabour filed a constitutional petition seeking a direction for the respondents to allot land/plots to her and the proforma respondents (her siblings) according to their shares in their late mother's inheritance. The land in question, measuring 03-kanals 06-marlas at Chak No. 447/EB, was acquired by the respondents for the Area Development Scheme No.II, Burewala in 1983. Naziran Bibi, the petitioner's mother, was the original allottee of the land, and after her death in 1998, the land was inherited by her children and husband. Following the father's death, his share was also inherited by the petitioner and her siblings. The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to provide the exempted/adjusted land to the heirs on the pretext that each legal heir's share was insufficient for allotment. ---Issues: Whether the legal heirs of Naziran Bibi should be allotted land/plots jointly according to their shares in her inheritance. Whether the respondents' refusal to allot the land based on individual shares being insufficient was justified. Whether the policy allowing exemption/adjustment of land should apply to the legal heirs of Naziran Bibi. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Legal Heirs' Entitlement: The court observed that Naziran Bibi was alive at the time of the land acquisition, and her entitlement to exemption/adjustment should be considered as a single individual. After her death, her legal heirs should inherit this entitlement collectively. Respondents' Refusal: The respondents claimed that each legal heir was to be treated separately, making their shares insufficient for allotment of plots. However, the court found this reasoning flawed, as the entitlement matured with Naziran Bibi's acquisition, and her heirs should inherit this as a collective entitlement. Policy Application: The court noted that the Chief Minister of Punjab had approved a policy for landowners, allowing a 30% exemption/adjustment in developed plots after recovering development charges. The court directed that this policy be applied to the legal heirs of Naziran Bibi. ----Conclusion: The petition was allowed, and the court directed that all legal heirs of Naziran Bibi be treated as her representatives. The respondents were instructed to process the case, allowing exemption/adjustment of plots to the legal heirs jointly, as Naziran Bibi would have been entitled if she were alive. ----Order: All legal heirs of Naziran Bibi are to be allotted plots jointly in accordance with the policy allowing exemption/adjustment, treating them as representatives of Naziran Bibi. The petition was allowed on these terms. ---Quote: ''The Chief Minister, Punjab approved summary on 27.08.2007 whereby former land owners were held entitled to exemption/adjustment equal to 30% on the basis of their entitlement of land acquired in 1983 reflected in the revenue record and each individual was to be treated separately. Admittedly, at the time of acquisition of the property, mother of the petitioner (owner of the property) was alive so she has to be treated as a single individual from whom the property was acquired and possession was taken over. After the death of the petitioner's mother in 1998, the land was mutated in favour of her legal heirs but the said heirs cannot be treated as separate individuals (holding not enough land available for exemption) on the basis of inheritance mutation in revenue record to deprive them of exemption to alternate land and holding them only entitled to compensation for the reason that the entitlement of their mother had matured on the acquisition and taking over possession by the respondents.''

Summary: Background: Muhammad Bashir Ahmad and another, the petitioners, filed a suit for declaration asserting their entitlement to inheritance from their deceased mother, Mst. Saidan Bibi. They contended that Saidan Bibi was the daughter of Fateh Muhammad, who owned 61-Kanals 02-Marlas of land in Chak No.385/GB, Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad. The petitioners argued that the respondents conspired to exclude Saidan Bibi from the inheritance mutation (Mutation No.35 dated 11.08.1961) and sought their shares in the suit land. The suit was contested by the respondents, primarily Safdar Ali, who argued that the petitioners were not entitled to any share as the relevant laws at the time did not recognize the rights of maternal grandchildren. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the petitioners' appeal was also dismissed, leading to the current revision petition. ---Issues: Effect of Withdrawal of Previous Suit: Whether the petitioners were precluded from filing the current suit due to the withdrawal of a previous suit without permission to refile. Limitation: Whether the suit was barred by limitation. Credibility of Evidence: Whether the evidence presented by the petitioners was credible enough to support their claim. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Effect of Withdrawal of Previous Suit: The court held that the petitioners' previous suit, which was withdrawn without seeking permission to file afresh, barred them from instituting the current suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule precludes the plaintiff from instituting any fresh suit on the same cause of action if the withdrawal is without permission. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Muhammad Yar (Deceased) through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Amin (Deceased) through L.Rs. (2013 SCMR 464), which emphasized that withdrawal of a suit without permission to refile precludes the institution of a fresh suit on the same subject matter. ---Limitation: The court found that the suit was barred by limitation. The previous suit was withdrawn on 02.10.2002, and the current suit was filed approximately eight years later. Under Order XXIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioners were bound by the law of limitation as if the first suit had not been instituted. The court noted that once the limitation period begins, it does not stop unless there is a valid reason, which was not present in this case. ---Credibility of Evidence: The court found the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners regarding the death of Mst. Saidan Bibi and Fateh Muhammad to be unreliable. The Secretary Union Council's report indicated no entries of their deaths in the relevant registers for the years claimed by the petitioners. The respondents' documents (Ex.D1 and Ex.D2), being public documents, were found to be credible and supported the respondents' stance. The court concluded that Mst. Saidan Bibi, having died before Fateh Muhammad, was rightly excluded from the inheritance mutation, as the Muslim Family Personal Law Ordinance, 1961, which could have granted the petitioners rights, was not enacted at the time of her death. ---Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioners failed to prove their case by leading credible and convincing evidence. The concurrent findings of the lower courts, which were based on proper appreciation and evaluation of the evidence, were upheld. The revision petition was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Yar (Deceased) through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Amin (Deceased) through L.Rs. (2013 SCMR 464) Khawaja Bashir Ahmed and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Martrade Shipping and Transport and others (PLJ 2021 SC 227) Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469) CANTONMENT BOARD through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. IKHLAQ AHMED and others (2014 SCMR 161) Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. (2017 SCMR 679) Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 13) Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 21) Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others (PLJ 2023 SC 8) Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb (2024 SCMR 916)

Summary: Islamic Law--- [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Declaration and Partition)] ----Inheritance---Nephew being son of pre-deceased brother could not claim inheritance even as vested inheritance as his father was not alive at the time of opening of succession---Daughter being sole legal heirs was entitled to half of the estate of the deceased as sharer and the remaining half which was to be treated as residue would also devolve on her---Both the courts below had passed judgments and decrees in violation of law of inheritance---Impugned judgments and decrees being contrary to law were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed---Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: no Inheritable Property. Plaint Rejected.