CIVIL PETITION NO.

957 OF 2020
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI

Ghulam Qasim and others Versus Mst. Razia Begum and others

Brief facts:
• This petition is basically challenging the judgment that was made by Multan Bench of the Lahore
High Court.
• In this case Respondent 1 had claimed her inheritance share as per Islamic law inheritance in the
estate of her deceased father, Muhammad Yar.
• The counsel for the petitioner argued on several points:
• That the judgment was declared invalid without the evidence on record being considered, that
the suit was not defendable as it was time barred.
• That Respondent 1 was depending on a document which was showing the date of death of
Muhammad Yar as 15 May 1986, which did not form part of her claim and was produced in
evidence.
• The petitioners claimed that Mohammed Yar was alive when the gift was made on 27 July 1986
and that he died on 28 May 1999.

Issue:
• What was the date of death of Mohammad Yar?
• Whether the purported gift claimed by her brothers was valid?
• Whether the suit was not defendable as it was time barred?
• Whether the death certificate or document was properly exhibited?
• How would the inheritance be distributed and what would be the share of the daughter?

Analysis:
• After hearing the counsels and examining the documents on record there is no doubt on the fact
that respondent 1 is the daughter of Muhammad Yar.
• The dispute is the death date of Muhammad Yar and It is important because Respondent 1
claimed that her father was dead when the gift was assumed to have been made.
• But the brothers claimed that the gift was made on 27 July 1986.
• The witnesses produced by them also testified that they had no knowledge of the gift and also
accepted that Muhammad Yar never attended the office of concerned Revenue department to
record his statement.
• The purported donees were asked to prove that Mohammed Yar had gifted them the land but
they failed to prove this point.
• Respondent 1 through her counsel, produced Mohammed Yar’s death certificate, which was
issued by the Concerned Union Council.
 • The petitioners did not raise any objection to her counsel on producing the death certificate,
instead they orally claimed that their father died on 28 May 1999 without any written proof
which was not enough.
• The question whether the document was properly exhibited, the record of union was not
questioned and the petitioners did not produce a contrary death certificate either.
• Hence, there is no reason to accept the fact that Muhammad are passed on 15 May 1986.
Therefore, the said gift mutation dated 27 July 1986 was made after the death of Muhammad
Yar and he could not have gifted the property after his death.
• As soon as a person dies all property transfers to his legal heirs and succession to his property
opens under Muslim law and there is no involvement to pass the titles to heirs.
• The dispute that possession of land was with petitioners and suit filed in 2008 could not
challenge gift mutation stated to have been made in the year 1986 as it was beyond limitation
period, will not in itself make the suit time barred because the possession by heirs is considered
to be constructive possession on behalf of all heirs.
• The cause of action would only arise when the respondent was denied her rights and it would be
from such date that time would start to run the burden, to establish this lay on the petitioners
which they had also failed to proof.
• The shares in property of deceased are prescribed in Holy Quran and Sharia and denying these is
disobedience to Allah.

Conclusion/decision:
• In this case sisters' right to inheritance could have been safeguarded if authorities had taken due
care but they failed to do so, either they were negligent or they were corrupt leading to
exploitation of weak.
• The court dealt with the case in detail and rightly concluded that the subordinate courts had
misread the evidence and said that the making of gift was not established.
• Another point raised by petitioner's counsel was that the respondent had claimed her share in
estate of deceased was 1/3 but as the deceased has two sons and two daughters, the sons share
would be double than that of daughters and the daughters would be given 1/6 share in
deceased estate.
• The counsel of respondents submitted that inheritance mutation of deceased estate has not
been prepared and that the respondent does not claim anything more than what is prescribed
by Islam as per Sunni law (per capita distribution).
• Therefore, the court held that gift mutation No. 88 dated 27 July 1986 should be cancelled
immediately if not done already.
• The concerned department was directed to prepare inheritance mutation of deceased and
record rights of legal heirs as per Sunni Hanafi law and deliver possession as per their respective
shares without any delay.
• Leave to appeal was declined and the petition was dismissed and costs throughout payable by
petitioner 1 and 2 to respondent 1.