Summary: Background:Allah Ditta filed a civil revision against the judgments and decrees dated 06.02.2010 and 19.06.2010 by the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Burewala, respectively, which dismissed his suit for declaration concerning his inheritance rights. Allah Ditta claimed his share as the legal heir of Mst. Fazal Noor, out of her share from the estate of her brother Sakhi Muhammad, specifically challenging mutations No. 820 and 821 dated 15.09.1990.-----Issues:Whether the mutations No. 820 and 821 dated 15.09.1990 were against law and facts, void, and liable to be canceled, affirming Allah Ditta as the legal heir of Sakhi Muhammad.The applicability of the statute of limitations to inheritance claims.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the lower courts' judgments and decrees, decreeing Allah Ditta's suit in his favor. The court observed that:Allah Ditta, as the real son and sole legal heir of Mst. Fazal Noor (deceased), who was the real sister of the deceased Sakhi Muhammad, is entitled to his share in Sakhi Muhammad's inheritance.The evidence, including the succession certificate and Jamabandi records, supported Allah Ditta's claim as the legal heir.The principle that no limitation runs in inheritance matters was emphasized, stating that a claim to inheritance can be made at any time, and wrongful entries in the revenue record do not extinguish a party's right to inheritance.The court criticized the lower courts for deciding the case on technical grounds without considering the substantive rights of the parties involved in inheritance matters.-----Citations/Precedents:Mst. Janat Bibi through L.Rs. v. Aslam Khan and 13 others (2017 CLC 436): Highlighted the principle that no limitation runs in matters of inheritance.Nusrat Abbas v. Nighat Parveen and others (2018 CLC 1115) and Muhammad Amin through Legal Heirs and 2 others v. Mst. Ashraf Bibi through Legal Heirs and another (2018 YLR 2524): Reinforced the notion that rights to inheritance are not extinguished by adverse entries in the revenue record and that the statute of limitations does not apply to inheritance claims.

Summary: The case involved a piece of agricultural land measuring 532 kanals 7 marlas in Tehsil Mailsi, District Multan, owned by Miran Khan. Miran Khan died in 1929, leaving his widow, Mst. Aisha, in possession of the property as a lifetime owner with no right to further alienate it. However, Mst. Aisha transferred the land to her relatives, claiming it was to repay a loan owed by her late husband. Qadir Bakhsh, claiming to be the collateral/reversioner of Miran Khan, filed a civil suit contending that Mst. Aisha had no authority to alienate the property and that the transfer was invalid. The suit was initially filed against Mst. Aisha but later included her relatives as defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Qadir Bakhsh, stating that the estate of Miran Khan should be divided among Mst. Aisha, Mst. Lakhan, Mst. Azmat (sisters of Miran Khan), and Mst. Jannat (mother of Miran Khan). Both Qadir Bakhsh and the sisters of Miran Khan appealed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court dismissed Qadir Bakhsh's appeal but accepted the appeal of the sisters, entitling them to a share of the estate. However, the case was remanded back to the appellate court by the high court to decide all the appeals afresh.Supreme Court stated that ''the could not go behind concurrent findings of fact ?unless it can be shown that the finding on the face of it is against the evidence or so patently improbable, or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice, or if there has been any misapplication of principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally, if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible''. After reviewing the facts and evidence, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The court held that Mst. Aisha, Mst. Lakhan, Mst. Azmat, and Mst. Jannat were the rightful heirs entitled to inherit the estate of Miran Khan, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were valid. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The detailed reasons for the decision were provided in the court's order.

Summary: The applicants filed a civil miscellaneous application (C.M.A.) seeking permission to include Tuba Sahab (respondent No. 2) as the daughter of Muhammad Zareef. The applicants had filed a suit alleging that Tuba Sahab was not the daughter of Azhar Hussain but of Muhammad Zareef. However, the High Court judge determined that Tuba Sahab was indeed the daughter of Azhar Hussain. The application was considered unnecessary as the petition for leave to appeal had been filed within the required time, and the application could only be granted if the High Court's judgment was set aside. Therefore, the court decided to proceed with hearing the petition for leave to appeal and directed the office to number the civil petition accordingly. In CPLA No. 3842/2022, the applicants claimed to be the siblings of Azhar Hussain, who passed away without any children on June 4, 2013. The applicants' contention was that if Tuba Sahab was considered Azhar Hussain's daughter, their share in his estate would be significantly reduced. They argued that Azhar Hussain followed the Sunni Hanafi fiqh of Islamic Shariah and that Tuba Sahab was actually the daughter of Muhammad Zareef, not Azhar Hussain. The suit was filed approximately seven months after Azhar Hussain's death when Tuba Sahab was around 17 years old. However, Tuba Sahab was raised by Azhar Hussain and Riffat Shamim as their daughter, and her paternity was not questioned by the applicants until after Azhar Hussain's passing. Riffat Shamim, the mother (respondent No. 1), testified that Tuba Sahab was her and Azhar Hussain's daughter. The High Court judge referred to various precedents, including the case of Laila Qayyum v Fawad Qayum, which dealt with the scope of declaratory suits filed under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, where the plaintiffs denied the paternity of another individual. The Supreme Court held in the Laila Qayyum case that challenging another's paternity or legitimacy did not constitute an assertion of one's own legal character under Section 42. The same principle applied to the present case, as the applicants lacked legal character under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The court found no distinction between the instant case and the Laila Qayyum case. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the High Court judge had correctly applied the law, as interpreted in the Laila Qayyum case. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition (CPLA No. 3842/2022) and CMA No. 3492/2022, without any order regarding costs, as no respondent had filed a caveat.

Summary: Background: The respondents filed a suit for declaration, claiming that the predecessor of the parties owned a certain piece of land and passed away in 2016. The respondents contended that the petitioner (defendant No.1) fraudulently got a gift mutation attested in his favor in 2015 in collusion with revenue officials, without any valid offer or acceptance of the gift by their father. They sought cancellation of the mutation as it was ineffective on their inheritance rights. The petitioner contested the suit, but during proceedings, plaintiff No.3 withdrew from the suit, and the petitioner eventually conceded to the claims of respondents No.1 and 2, his real sisters. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of respondents No.1 and 2, ordering the cancellation of the impugned mutation and sanctioning an inheritance mutation for their respective shares. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the appellate court, leading him to file this revision petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the consent decree passed by the trial court was appealable. -----2- Whether the trial court and appellate court committed any legal error in decreeing the suit based on the petitioner’s concession. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that since the petitioner had consented to the claims of respondents No.1 and 2 during trial proceedings, the resulting decree was a consent decree. As a general rule, no appeal lies against a consent decree. However, the court listed exceptions where a consent decree may be appealable, such as when consent was obtained through fraud, the court lacked jurisdiction, or the decree went beyond the compromise. In this case, none of these exceptions were applicable. The petitioner's argument that part of the land in question did not exist on the spot was not sufficient to challenge the consent decree. Therefore, the trial and appellate courts were found to have acted correctly, and the revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit. -----Citations/Precedents: Exceptions to appealability of consent decrees under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (O.XXIII, Rule 3).

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Inheritance---Deceased father’s estate---Jurisdiction---Complainants (daughters) alleged that their brothers deprived them of ownership and possession of inherited property situated partly in Islamabad and partly in Rawalpindi—Respondents objected to forum’s jurisdiction on ground that part of the property was outside Islamabad—Held, Ombudsman had jurisdiction over properties situated within Islamabad Capital Territory, but not over immovable property located in Rawalpindi District. (b) Women’s right to inheritance---Scope of protection under the Act ----Revenue record confirmed that land measuring 5 kanal 1 marla 3 sarsai in Moza Tarlai Kalan, Islamabad remained in the name of deceased father—Ombudsman directed revenue authorities to enter and attest inheritance mutation in favour of all legal heirs, including complainants, according to their Sharia shares—Land situated in Moza Jhang Sayedan found to have been sold by deceased during his lifetime; thus excluded from inheritance. (c) Civil remedies---Challenge to alienation of ancestral property ----Where deceased transferred property during lifetime through validly attested mutations, heirs dissatisfied with such transactions may challenge validity before competent Civil Court—Ombudsman cannot adjudicate upon title disputes or declare such transfers void. (d) Property within CDA jurisdiction ----Built-up house situated in Sector I-8/1, Islamabad, found in name of deceased—CDA directed to scrutinize ownership documents and transfer the property to legal heirs according to their Sharia shares. (e) Disposition — Complaint partly allowed. Revenue Officer Moza Tarlai Kalan directed to attest inheritance mutation and restore possession to complainants as per Sharia entitlement. Properties outside Islamabad held beyond Ombudsman’s jurisdiction; challenge to prior transfers left open to Civil Court.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a civil revision challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Yazman, who had overturned a trial court's decision and decreed a suit for declaration filed by the respondent, Muhammad Farooq. The dispute involved the inheritance of Muhammad Ali, who died on 10.10.2012. Muhammad Farooq (the respondent) was excluded from the inheritance as he was accused and convicted of murdering his father, Muhammad Ali. A compromise was later reached, and Muhammad Farooq was acquitted, leading him to claim his right to inherit his father’s property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, prompting this civil revision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent, having been convicted of murdering his father but later acquitted on the basis of compromise, is entitled to inherit his father’s property. -----2- Whether the appellate court's judgment was in accordance with Islamic principles and the law. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that under Islamic law and Pakistani law, a person who commits patricide (murder of their father) is debarred from inheriting the estate of the deceased. The court referred to Section 317 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which expressly prohibits a murderer from succeeding to the estate of the victim. The court also cited various Hadiths and case law, including Aminullah v. The State (PLD 1982 SC 429), where the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a patricide is excluded from inheritance rights. Although the respondent was acquitted due to a compromise, the court emphasized that the act of patricide, which was established, precludes the respondent from inheriting his father's property. The court criticized the appellate court for misreading and misapplying the law, as its judgment contradicted established Islamic principles and legal precedents. The court reversed the findings of the appellate court and upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit. The civil revision was allowed, and the respondent was excluded from inheriting his father's estate. -----Citations/Precedents: Aminullah v. The State (PLD 1982 SC 429) Fazle Ghafoor v. Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir (1993 SCMR 1073) Mst. Beguman and 2 others v. Saroo (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 451) Syed Muhammad Nawaz Shah and others v. Amir Hussain Shah and others (1989 CLC 1712) Noor Zaman alias Maney v. The State (2008 YLR 2352) Muhammad Shafi Tarar v. Fehmida Yasmin and others (2018 CLC 860)

Summary: Background:This case originated from a property dispute concerning land in Shahpur Town and Jalalpur Jagir, owned by Murid Hussain and Ali Hussain. After their deaths, their respective widows and a third related party held the property as limited owners until the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act of 1962, which ended the limited ownership. A lawsuit ensued among various family members and heirs, claiming different shares based on traditional and Sharia law. The matter was complicated by various legal claims, including an oral gift and adjustments in property records, leading to multiple legal challenges across several court levels.----Issues:Whether the Appellate and High Courts erred in relying on the death certificate of Mst. Malookan Bibi (Exh.P21) admitted during the appellate stage, which indicated she died before Ali Hussain, thus affecting the distribution of the estate.The admissibility and effect of a compromise deed that was not fully executed or considered by the courts.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Appellate and High Courts. The Court found:The appellate court was justified in admitting the death certificate of Mst. Malookan Bibi as additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it was necessary to clarify the factual dispute regarding the date of her death.The compromise deed executed in 1969 was not given due consideration because it was marked but not exhibited in evidence, and the appellate and High Courts were correct in their treatment of this document.The judgments of the lower courts were based on a proper assessment of the evidence, including the legally admitted death certificate which was decisive in determining the heirs entitled to the estate.----Citations/Precedents:Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code ? Pertains to the conditions under which additional evidence may be admitted at the appellate stage.Evidence Act sections relevant to public documents and certified copies ? These were applied to validate the admission and consideration of the death certificate as a public document.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----S. 4---Inheritance---Claim by female heir against brother regarding ancestral property---Complainant (sister) alleged that Respondent (brother) denied her share in ancestral house located in Village Saidpur, Islamabad, and threatened her—Commission appointed by Ombudsperson to ascertain factual position of property division—Commission’s report confirmed that the disputed house was already partitioned, each party having separate portions and independent entrances—Held, Complainant’s claim of exclusion from inheritance not supported by evidence. (b) Commission report---Evidentiary value---Where commission is appointed to inspect site in presence of both parties, its findings regarding existing partition carry conclusive weight unless rebutted by contrary material---Report showing separate access and occupancy for each sibling held sufficient to negate allegation of deprivation. (c) Family obligations---Moral and equitable duty of brother toward sister---Although complaint not substantiated regarding denial of inheritance, Respondent being brother directed to facilitate Complainant’s peaceful use of premises and permit access to common roof area, maintaining familial care and protection. (d) Disposition— Complaint disposed of—Respondent directed to provide all necessary facilities to Complainant, including access to roof and general care, in recognition of her status as co-heir and sister—No further action required.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----S. 5---Inheritance---Restoration of ownership and possession---Complainants, daughters of deceased owner, filed complaint under the Act claiming their *shari* shares in inherited land comprising khasra Nos. 1293/43, 53, 52, 50 and 1294/41, Moza Pahag Sihala, Islamabad—Respondents, their brothers, had deprived them of ownership and possession—Revenue record and mutation No. 1728 confirmed complainants’ ownership of eight shares—Held, complainants unlawfully deprived of their property rights. (b) Ex parte proceedings---Unrebutted evidence---Respondents proceeded ex parte—Affidavits and documentary record produced by complainants remained unchallenged—Held, sufficient proof existed to establish ownership and illegal deprivation. (c) Summary nature of proceedings---No further probe required ----Where claim is supported by revenue record and remains unrebutted, Ombudsman may decide summarily under S. 5 without detailed inquiry or further evidence. (d) Deputy Commissioner’s duty---Implementation of order ----S. 5---Deputy Commissioner Islamabad directed to take steps to restore or confer possession and title of property to complainants and to submit compliance report by the specified date. (e) Disposition — Complaint allowed. Complainants Arbeena Bibi, Suraya Begum, and Walayat Jan declared lawful owners of their inherited shares in land comprising khasra Nos. 1293/43, 53, 52, 50 and 1294/41, Moza Pahag Sihala, Islamabad. Deputy Commissioner Islamabad directed under S. 5 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020, to restore possession and title to complainants and submit compliance report by 03-08-2022.

Summary: [Argument of limitation does not apply to co-sharers--West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948---West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The Court held that the termination of Mst. Noor Bibi's limited interest in the property took the matter back to 1922, the year of her father's death, and that all legal heirs became owners/co-sharers since 1922, regardless of the non-updated revenue records. The Court rejected the argument of limitation, stating that it does not apply against co-sharers in matters of inheritance, as they are considered in possession of the joint property. The Court distinguished previous cases where limitation was applied due to delayed challenges to property transfers. In this case, the Court found that the dispute was a simple matter of inheritance, and each case should be examined on its unique facts and circumstances.] The dispute revolves around the inheritance of agricultural land left by a person named Alia, recorded in the revenue records as Ali Bakhsh. Upon his death, his three sons, namely Imam Din, Karim Bakhsh, and Rahim Bakhsh, inherited the property equally. Imam Din died in 1922, and his widow, Mst. Amina Bibi, succeeded him as a limited owner under customary law until her remarriage. Mst. Noor Bibi, daughter of Imam Din and mother of the appellants, then succeeded Mst. Amina Bibi as a limited owner of the property until her marriage.After Mst. Noor Bibi's marriage in 1944-45, her limited interest in the property legally terminated, but this change was not reflected in the revenue record. The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that after Mst. Noor Bibi's marriage, the property should revert to the actual legal heirs, Karim Bakhsh and Rahim Bakhsh, as the brothers of Imam Din. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs by the trial court, and subsequent appeals upheld the decision. Mst. Noor Bibi, the appellant, argued that the suit was time-barred due to the law of limitation.The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant laws, particularly the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, and the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The Court held that the termination of Mst. Noor Bibi's limited interest in the property took the matter back to 1922, the year of her father's death, and that all legal heirs became owners/co-sharers since 1922, regardless of the non-updated revenue records. The Court rejected the argument of limitation, stating that it does not apply against co-sharers in matters of inheritance, as they are considered in possession of the joint property. The Court distinguished previous cases where limitation was applied due to delayed challenges to property transfers. In this case, the Court found that the dispute was a simple matter of inheritance, and each case should be examined on its unique facts and circumstances.