IMDADULLAH vs Mst — 2022 CLC 2136 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

IMDADULLAH VS Mst. ZAHIDA S.41---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3---Inheritance---Suit for declaration/permanent injunction---Estoppel, principle of---Applicability---Plaintiffs claimed that defendant with collusion of revenue authorities had entered the entire legacy of the predecessor in interest ("A") of the plaintiffs in his name in the revenue record; that plaintiffs had been deprived of their shari shares; that revenue record had been ineffective upon rights of the plaintiffs and liable to correction---Suit was partially decreed by Civil Court---Both parties filed separate appeals which were dismissed by District Court and thereafter both filed revision petitions---Validity---Pedigree-table showed that "A" had been survived by one son ("B") and 8 daughters---Said predecessor had died before the time when district land record settlement was being conducted and his son "B" had died---Defendants case was that "B" had inherited from "A" but had disposed of all of his property during his lifetime and therefore, he had not been owning any property at the time of his death from which shares of the plaintiffs could be paid---Defendants had been aggrieved of Civil Court's judgment whereby property in the name of widow of "B" (hereinafter "C") had been included in the pool for distribution among the legal heirs, besides burdening them to compensate the plaintiffs for the entire property that deceased "B" had disposed of during his lifetime---Plaintiffs were aggrieved to the extent that the benefit of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, had wrongly been extended to all the vendees, who had acquired title from "B"---No mutation/inheritance had been effected in respect of any legacy of "B" for he had not been shown owner of any property at the time of his death---Statement of Patwari Halqa supported the said version and other evidence of plaintiffs was also silent about any inheritance mutation of "B"--- No other evidence could be brought on record establishing that "B" had been owner of any property---No mutation of inheritance had been effected in respect of any legacy of "B" for the reason that he had not been shown owner of any property at the time of his death---No other evidence could be brought on record establishing that "B" had been owner of any property---Statements of witnesses were silent regarding the fact whether the deceased had been owning any property at the time of his death or not---Official witness produced record and stated in his cross-examination that in Fard Jamabandi, only names of the decree-holders had been mentioned but names of the parties to the suit had not been mentioned---Defendants evidence deposed in cross-examination that "B" used to live a luxurious life; that he used to sell his property for having luxury tours; that he had not been doing any job and had got no other means of income than selling of the properties and that he had been on good terms with his sisters, i.e. plaintiffs and that plaintiffs also used to advise him for selling the inherited property---In response to the suggestion, plaintiffs stated that her bother "B" used to do everything in consultation with his mother and sisters---Plaintiffs were Pardanasheen ladies but they had never brought a case for preventing these transactions---Evidence showed that plaintiffs had been well aware of all such transactions which had not been conducted surreptitiously but had been open transactions, wherein possession had also changed hands---No suit had been brought at the death of "B" when he had disposed of all of his properties---Plaintiffs remained mum and had not created any hurdle rather they had also been beneficiary of the income generated by such sales of properties---Principle of estoppel could be invoked against the plaintiffs---Conduct of claimant would become relevant/material when the bar of limitation was pleaded by the adversary---Revision petition was allowed accordingly. Head Notes

IMDADULLAH vs Mst — 2022 CLC 2136 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLC