Summary: Background: This civil appeal was filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Mirpur, dated 31.03.2008, which upheld the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur, dated 10.08.2006. The case involves the inheritance of land originally owned by Allah Ditta and Karam Allahi. After Allah Ditta's death, his widow, Inayat Begum, married Muhammad Sadiq and transferred the entire property to herself, later gifting it to Sadiq. The appellants, claiming to be the legal heirs of Karam Allahi, contested this transfer. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court properly identified and considered the legal heirs of Karam Allahi. 2- Whether the property transfer and subsequent gift to Muhammad Sadiq were legally valid. 3- Whether the trial court's judgment and decree were sustainable under Islamic inheritance laws. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification of Legal Heirs: The court found that the trial court failed to properly identify and consider the legal heirs of Karam Allahi. According to Islamic Law, specifically under Section 44 of Muhammadan Law, inheritance must be divided among heirs at the moment of death of the deceased. The appellants, as distant kindred, should have been considered for inheritance. --Validity of Property Transfer and Gift: The court held that the transfer of property to Inayat Begum and the subsequent gift to Muhammad Sadiq were not legally valid. The trial court did not adequately address the devolution of property according to Islamic inheritance laws, particularly given Karam Allahi's status as a lunatic. --Sustainability of Trial Court's Judgment: The court determined that the trial court's judgment and decree were not sustainable. The trial court had not followed the proper legal procedures in identifying the heirs and determining the inheritance. The decision was made in a hasty manner without due consideration of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The appeal was accepted, and the judgments and decrees of both the District Judge and the Senior Civil Judge were set aside. The case was remanded to the trial court to decide on the specific issue of identifying the legal heirs of Karam Allahi. The trial court was directed to include the public at large as parties in the case under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and to adjudicate the matter strictly according to Islamic inheritance laws. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 44 of Muhammadan Law Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC PLD 1963 SC 382 - Imtiaz Ahmed vs. Gullam Ali Islamic Law on Distant Kindred: Descendants of the deceased other than sharers and residuaries. Ascendants of the deceased other than sharers and residuaries. Descendants of parents other than sharers and residuaries. Descendants of ascendants how highsoever other than residuaries. This decision emphasized the importance of adhering to Islamic inheritance laws and proper legal procedures in determining the rightful heirs and distributing the inheritance accordingly.

Summary: PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 114 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Ahmad Nadeem Arshad J SADIQ RASHEED and another - - Petitioners versus Mst UZMA RIZWAN and 10 others - - Respondents CR No 1242 of 2019 decided on 2792021 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - OVII R11 - - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (V of 2017) S 43 - - Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S 42 - - Suits for declaration - - Rejection of plaints - - Barred by law - - Appeal - - Allowed - - Benami owners - - Actual owner - - Entitlement for inheritance - - Suit property was not fall within ambit of benami property - - One party claims ownership of house in dispute whereas opposite party denies said claim based on registered documents which means property in dispute is not an un - attended and title - less property - - When such controversy arises between parties regarding ownership of house exclusive jurisdiction vests in Civil Courts to decide title and ownership of such property after recording of evidence of parties - - Respondent No 1 rightly instituted a suit for declaration in order to get declare her rights with regard to suit property before Civil Court - - The appellate Court has rightly observed that property in dispute does not fall within ambit of Benami property as defined in Act and Civil Court has jurisdiction to conduct trial and decide lis regarding title and ownership in accordance with law and Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 2017 is not applicable upon instant case - - Counsel for petitioners has failed to point out any error in impugned judgment and decree which is based upon p correct appraisal of law - - Civil revision dismissed [Para 8 9] C D E F Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 2017 (V of 2017) - - - - - - S 43 - - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - - Civil Courts shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter to which any of authorities or tribunal is empowered by or under Act to determine [P 4] A Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 2017 (V of 2017) - - - - - - S 22 - - Benami property - - Intent object of benami - - Intent and object of Act 2017 is very much clear - - According to which if a property was purchased in name of a person who according to his social status unable to have purchased any property by his own means if found such property in his name then Act will come into play and will act upon procedure as laid down in Section 22 of Act and such property shall be considered as Benami property and would be subject to confiscation in favour of State [Para 5] B Mr Imran Shahzad Bhatti Advocate for Petitioners Ms Muhammad Suleman Bhatti Syed Tajamal Hussain Bukhari Mr Bilal Amin and Malik Nazir Hussain Advocates for RespondentsJudgement Result:Civil Revision dismissed

Summary: Background: A civil revision was filed before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, challenging the concurrent judgments of the lower courts. The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit for a declaration, claiming inheritance rights in a property originally allotted by the Provincial Government under the "Dakheel-Kari-Scheme." The property was inherited by their grandmother as a limited owner under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, upon the death of the original allottee, their grandfather. The plaintiffs argued that their rights were wrongfully bypassed in the inheritance mutation, which transferred the property to other relatives of the deceased. They claimed entitlement based on the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, under which grandchildren could inherit their predeceased parent's share. The defendants (petitioners) contended that, since the plaintiffs’ mother predeceased the original allottee, the plaintiffs had no inheritance rights under Islamic law, arguing that the Ordinance of 1961 did not apply retroactively. -----Issues: 1- Whether the plaintiffs, as grandchildren of the original allottee, are entitled to a share in the inheritance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, despite their mother predeceasing her parents. -----2- Whether the inheritance rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, were correctly applied in the plaintiffs' case, specifically regarding the limited ownership granted to the grandmother. -----3- Whether the inheritance mutation in favor of the defendants was valid and binding on the plaintiffs. -----4- Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation due to the time elapsed since the original mutation. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision, affirming the lower courts' judgments in favor of the plaintiffs. The court's reasoning was as follows: --Inheritance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961: The court applied Section 4 of the Ordinance, which allows grandchildren to inherit their predeceased parent’s share if succession opens after the ordinance's promulgation. The court found that this provision applied, granting the plaintiffs their mother's share of the inheritance. --Limited Ownership and Succession Under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912: The court noted that the original allottee’s widow had limited ownership, which terminated upon her death. With the addition of Section 19-A to the Act, succession in such cases would revert to the rules of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). The plaintiffs, as descendants of the original allottee, were therefore entitled to inherit under these provisions. --Validity of Mutation and Limitation: The court determined that inheritance rights are not extinguished by time limitations. Additionally, mutations serve only fiscal purposes and do not create legal title. Thus, the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by limitation, as inheritance claims remain valid regardless of time elapsed. The court dismissed the revision, reaffirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to their mother's share in the disputed property. The defendants’ arguments regarding limitation and the validity of mutation were rejected. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1961 Central Statutes at Page 337 Allah Rakha and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2000 FSC 1) Yusuf Abbas and others vs. Mst. Ismat Mustafa and others (PLD 1968 Karachi 480) Sakhi Muhammad vs. Ahmad Khan and 3 others (1980 CLC 1006) Ibrahim and 3 others vs. Nehmat Bi and 5 others (PLD 1988 Lahore 186) Kamal Khan alias Kamala vs. Zainab Bibi (PLD 1983 Lahore 546)

Summary: Background: The Petitioner asserted her biological maternity and sought to reclaim custody from the adoptive parent. The case was heard in the context of an increasing focus on adoption within Pakistan and its implications under Islamic and Pakistani Law.---Issue:1. Legal Status of Adoption in Islam and Pakistani Law: Whether the adoptive relationship established by respondent has legal precedence over the biological connection in the context of custody.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The central legal question was whether the adoptive relationship established by the third respondent should take precedence over the biological connection between the plaintiff and the child, especially in the context of custody rights. This issue probes deep into the legal fabric of Pakistani law and Islamic jurisprudence concerning the recognition and implications of adoption.The court determined that the biological connection between the plaintiff and the child was paramount, overriding the legal relationship established through adoption by the third respondent. The judgment explicitly stated that, under Islamic and Pakistani law, adoption does not confer the same legal rights as biological parenthood, especially regarding custody and inheritance rights. The judge noted:"According to the NADRA (National Database and Registration Authority) Registration procedure, the parentage of the adopted child with known parentage must be entered as that of natural/biological parents, whereas parentage of the children with unknown parentage can be entered with some fictitious names to avoid social stigmas but there must be evidence provided by the adoptive parents that the child is with unknown parentage to avoid any confusion or controversy over the rights or duties of the adopted child as a biological child." ----The court ruled in favor of Mst. Arzoo, granting her custody of Muhammad Ans after the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore, confirmed her maternity through DNA analysis. The judgment highlighted the lack of legal consequences of adoption in Islamic and Pakistani law regarding custodial rights. The court emphasized the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration, overriding procedural custody claims under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.----Citations/Precedents:-Mirjam Aberras Lehdeaho v. S.H.O., Police Station Chung, Lahore and others (2018 SCMR 427)-Ahmed Sami and 2 others v. Saadia Ahmed and another (1996 SCMR 268)Shaukat Masih v. Mst. Farhat Parkash and others (2015 SCMR 731)-Muhammad Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Mst. Shabana Rahman and another (PLD 1995 SC 633)-Mst. Nadia Perveen v. Mst. Almas Noreen and others (PLD 2012 SC 758)Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898Guardians and Wards Act, 1890Succession Act, 1925

Summary: Issues:Whether the succession to Din Muhammad's tenancy is governed under Section 20 of the Colonization Act or Sharia law.The relevance of the dates of the Deputy Commissioner's orders and inheritance mutations in determining the applicable law for succession.---Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, upholding the High Court's judgments that recognized the rights of Gohar Ali's daughters under Sharia law, despite the appellants' arguments favoring the Colonization Act's provisions.---Reasoning:The Court found that Sharia law was applicable to Muslims in Bahawalpur for matters of succession even before the 1951 amendment to the Colonization Act, based on the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, and subsequent legislative acts.The Court rejected the appellants' alternate plea to be treated as original tenants, as the record depicted them as legal heirs of Din Muhammad, and succession devolved upon them under Section 20 of the Colonization Act.Limitation objections raised by the appellants were dismissed, considering the established principle that no limitation runs against a co-sharer in matters of inheritance where they have been denied their rightful share.Rule: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the precedence of Sharia law for Muslim succession matters in Bahawalpur, even prior to the 1951 amendment of the Colonization Act, and clarified the non-applicability of limitation in cases of inheritance rights disputes among co-sharers.

Summary: Background: The appellant, challenged the judgment and decree dated November 30, 2018, passed by the Civil Judge, Islamabad. The suit sought a declaration, permanent, and mandatory injunction regarding inheritance rights in House No.D-117, Pakistan Navy Housing Scheme – Haider, Zamzama, Karachi. The appellant claimed that he and his family were entitled to shares in the inheritance of the suit property from his deceased son, Lt. Abdul Qayyum, who passed away on December 29, 1997. The appellant also contested a letter dated August 2, 1999, from the Director General, Welfare and Rehabilitation, Naval Headquarters, which transferred the suit property solely to his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Ayesha Qayyum (respondent No.5). ----Issues: 1- Inheritance Rights: Whether the suit property was part of Lt. 2- Abdul Qayyum's estate to be inherited by all his legal heirs. 3- Validity of Allotment: Whether the transfer of the suit property to respondent No.5, as per Navy Housing Scheme’s terms, was lawful. 4- Legality of Marriage: Whether the appellant's claim that the nikahnama was forged had any merit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Inheritance Rights: The Court held that Lt. Abdul Qayyum was a member of the Navy Housing Scheme and was entitled to the allotment of a house only upon retirement, provided he completed 23 years of commissioned service. Clause 19 of the scheme’s terms stipulated that in the event of a member's death during membership, the house would be transferred to the widow or next-of-kin. Thus, the suit property was transferred to respondent No.5 based on this clause. ---Validity of Allotment: The Court found that the ownership of the suit property did not vest in Lt. Abdul Qayyum at any material stage; he only had membership in the housing scheme. Since the property was transferred to respondent No.5 (widow of Lt. Abdul Qayyum) as per the terms of the housing scheme, it did not form part of Lt. Abdul Qayyum's legacy/estate. The Court upheld that the allotment was valid and lawful as per the contractual terms of the Navy Housing Scheme. ---Legality of Marriage: The Court noted that the appellant had acknowledged respondent No.5 as the widow of Lt. Abdul Qayyum in a letter dated September 9, 1998, and a succession certificate issued by the High Court of Sindh recognized respondent No.5 as the widow. The Court found no merit in the appellant's claim of forgery of the nikahnama. -----Citations/Precedents Shahnaz Parveen v. Javed Yaqoob (2020 MLD 638): Held that property acquired posthumously by nomination does not constitute inheritance. Wafaqi Hakoomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas (PLD 1991 SC 731): Distinguished between property owned by the deceased and property not owned at the time of death. Zaheer Abbas v. Pir Asif (2011 CLC 1528): Clarified that service benefits accruing posthumously do not form part of the deceased’s estate.

Summary: Facts:The petitioner claimed to be the daughter of Jabbar Din and granddaughter of Mst. Karima Bibi.A dispute arose regarding the inheritance mutation incorporated in the revenue record after the passing away of Jabbar Din and his mother, Mst. Karima Bibi.The trial court decreed in favor of the petitioner's claim, which was upheld by the appellate court.However, an application was filed before the appellate court seeking direction for the petitioner to undergo a DNA test, which was allowed but later dismissed by the High Court.The High Court allowed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, remanding the matter to the trial court for recording additional evidence, and also set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts.----Issues:Whether the High Court was justified in accepting the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and remanding the matter for recording of additional evidence.Whether the High Court, in the absence of jurisdiction exercised illegally or with material irregularity by the subordinate courts, was justified in allowing the revision petition and remanding the matter to the trial Court.----Decision:The Court held that the grounds for remanding the matter and setting aside the concurrent findings were not justified.The Court emphasized that the power under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC should be exercised cautiously and sparingly, and only in exceptional circumstances.The Court found that the evidence sought to be recorded as additional evidence did not disclose any exceptional circumstances and appeared to be an attempt at a fishing or roving inquiry.The remanding of the matter by the High Court was deemed inconsistent with legislative intent and principles of law.----Disposition: Civil Petition dismissed.

Summary: The petitioner (grandfather) was never party to the suit. There is no cavil that in terms of para 370 of Muhammadan Law by D.F Mulla's, a grandfather in certain circumstances is bound to maintain his grandchildren but obligation of the grandfather to maintain his grandchildren is hedged with certain conditions. In order to understand the matter in issue in better terms, para 370 of Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mulla's. Primarily it is the father who is bound to maintain his children, in case of son(s) until he (they) attain(s) the age of puberty and if there are daughters, till their marriage. In case, the father is poor and incapable of maintaining by his own, the mother would come into picture and if she is in easy circumstances, she would be bound to maintain her children in place of father. The liability of grandfather though starts when the father is poor and infirm and the mother is also not in a position to provide maintenance to her children but such liability of grandfather is dependent upon the fact that he should be in easy circumstances. After having a glimpse of the survey of law on the subject, I am of the firm view that Family Court can never be helpless to get its decree executed. The process of execution cannot shift towards the grandfather merely on the ground that decree could not be satisfied against the father (judgment debtor). The Family Court cannot assume the role of spectator rather it can adopt the procedure contained in "CPC" for the execution of the decree.

Summary: Background: The appellants filed a civil appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge Kotli on December 30, 2014, which upheld the earlier judgment of the Civil Judge Court No.1 Kotli dated November 29, 2013. The plaintiffs, claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Mohammad Aziz, challenged the validity of a gift deed executed by Mohammad Aziz in favor of the respondent Shahid Iqbal. The appellants contended that the gift deed was obtained fraudulently when Mohammad Aziz was mentally unstable due to the death of his only son. ----Issues: 1- Whether the gift deed executed by Mohammad Aziz in favor of the respondent was valid. 2- Whether Mohammad Aziz was of sound mind when the gift deed was executed. 3- Whether the appellants, as legal heirs, were unlawfully deprived of their inheritance. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court held that the gift deed dated January 21, 2010, was invalid and inoperative. The court found that the gift deed was obtained through fraudulent means when Mohammad Aziz was mentally distressed due to the death of his son. The court noted several discrepancies and inadequacies in the evidence provided by the respondent (donee), including the failure to produce the scribe and one of the marginal witnesses of the gift deed. --Validity of the Gift Deed: The court found the gift deed suspicious and doubtful. It emphasized that the legal heirs, particularly the wife and daughter of Mohammad Aziz, were unjustly deprived of their inheritance. The court held that the donee failed to justify why the entire property was gifted to him, excluding the legal heirs. --Mental Soundness of the Donor: The court concluded that Mohammad Aziz was not of sound mind when the gift deed was executed. Witnesses testified that he became mentally unstable following the death of his son, which made the circumstances surrounding the gift deed highly questionable. --Rights of Legal Heirs: The court upheld the appellants' rights as legal heirs, ruling that the gift deed could not legally transfer the entire property to the respondent, thereby depriving the legal heirs of their rightful inheritance. The High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the Civil Judge Court No.1 Kotli and the District Judge Kotli. The gift deed dated January 21, 2010, was declared illegal and inoperative. The court ruled in favor of the appellants, affirming their rights as legal heirs to the property in question. The appeal was accepted, and the lower court decisions were annulled. ----Citations/Precedents: PLJ 2017 SC (AJ&K) 137 Establishes that legal heirs cannot be deprived of their inheritance through fraudulent means. 2005 SCMR 134 Emphasizes the importance of proving the validity of a gift deed, especially when it excludes legal heirs. 2003 CLC 485 Highlights the necessity of producing credible evidence to support the execution of a gift deed. PLD 1960 (W.P) Karachi 745 Discusses the requirements for proving a valid gift under Islamic law. 1994 SCMR 1870 Reinforces the principle that legal heirs should not be unjustly deprived of their inheritance. 2021 YLR 1155 Stresses the need for clear and convincing evidence to support claims involving the transfer of property through gifts. PLD 1985 AJ&K 1 Addresses the legal standards for validating gift deeds in the context of inheritance disputes. 2016 YLR 2087 Focuses on the burden of proof required to establish the validity of a gift deed. 2006 SCR 11 Clarifies the legal implications of gift deeds under Islamic law. PLD 1994 SC 650 Examines the procedural requirements for executing and validating gift deeds.

Summary: (Right to liberty and right to privacy under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution - DNA test cannot be conducted without consent of the party in civil cases) The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging a gift mutation made by the deceased Muhammad Hussain in favor of the petitioner. The respondents, claiming to be legal heirs of Muhammad Hussain, alleged that the petitioner was not his son and had obtained the gift mutation fraudulently. The trial court dismissed an application by the respondents for a DNA test of the petitioner and two other individuals. However, the revisional court allowed the application, ordering the DNA test. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, but it was dismissed. The petitioner then filed the present petition seeking leave to appeal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the fundamental rights of privacy and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. It noted that ordering a DNA test without the consent of the individuals involved infringes their fundamental rights. The court highlighted that privacy encompasses protection from unwarranted intrusion into personal lives, including personal information and family life. It stated that the conducting of a DNA test without consent violates these rights. The court also discussed the right to liberty, which includes freedom from arbitrary or purposeless encroachments by the state. It emphasized that individuals have the right to control their bodies and make decisions about their healthcare. Unauthorized DNA collection was seen as a violation of bodily autonomy and personal freedom. Furthermore, the court noted that the presumption of paternity under the law could be used when a person refuses to undergo a DNA test. However, this presumption does not apply to individuals who are not parties to the proceedings and have not given their consent for a DNA test. Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that the revisional court and the High Court had erred in ordering the DNA test without the consent of the individuals involved. The court highlighted the importance of other evidence presented by the petitioner to establish his relationship with the deceased Muhammad Hussain. It emphasized that if the petitioner could prove his mother's valid marriage to Muhammad Hussain, it would conclusively establish his legitimacy as the son of Muhammad Hussain, as per the law. In light of these findings, the Supreme Court determined that there was no jurisdictional error in the trial court's order and denied the petitioner leave to appeal.