NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Mst — 2023 MLD 1357 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

NOOR MUHAMMAD VS Mst. SUKHAN (DECEASED) Ss. 3 & 5---Inheritance---Custom---Limited owner, termination of---Properties of deceased/predecessor in interest of parties was mutated only in favour of "A1" son of "A" (1st son of predecessor) as per custom---After death of "A1", the same was inherited by his mother "A2"---After her death, properties were inherited by "B1", "B2", "B3" and "B4" being legal heirs of "B" (2nd son of predecessor); and by "C1" being legal heir of "C" (3rd son of predecessor)---After death of "C1", his property was inherited by his widow "C1a" and his daughter "C1b"---Suit for declaration, challenging all mutations, was instituted by legal heirs of "E" (5th son of predecessor) against legal heirs "B1", "B2", "B3", "B4", "C1a" and "C1b" claiming inheritance from the legacy of "A" contending that "A2" was limited owner and they had right to inherit her property; that had right to inherit from the legacy of "C1"; and had right in the property of tamleek whereby "B4" gifted his property to his daughter---Trial Court had cancelled mutation of "C1" and delivered 1/3 share to "B4" being uterine brother of "C1"---Appellate Court decided that after distribution of due shares of "C1a" and "C1b", shares may be distributed among other heirs of "C1" but "B1" should inherit nothing---Both parties filed their separate revision petitions---Validity---Held, that in accordance with S. 3 of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, on termination of limited owner of female ("A2") inheritance was opened at the time of death of last male owner (A1) and successors of propositus were entitled to inherit---Plaintiffs not being legal heirs of "B4", had no locus standi to challenge tamlik/gift made by "B4"---Property held by the lady by operation of law reverted/return to last full owner "A" and his legal heirs were entitled to receive their respective shares---Property was to be distributed amongst his legal heirs according to the following shares: "A2" (widow) = 4/32; "A3" (daughter) = 7/32; "A4" (daughter) = 7/32; A1 = 14/32---On death of "A1", his property was to be shared by the following: "A2" (mother) = 1/3; "A3" and "A4" = 2/3---No property was left for distribution amongst lineal defendants---Plaintiffs had neither legal heirs of "C1" any of the said shares nor had any right to challenge the validity of mutations---"C1" had a child (daughter), therefore, his uterine brothers had no right of inheritance from his legacy---Perusal of mutation showed that "C1a" and "C1b" were given 1/8 and 7/8 shares from legacy of "C1" which was incorrect---Instead, "C1a" would get 1/8; "C1b" would get 1/2 (3/8); and rest of 3/8 share would go to paternal uncle's sons of "C1"; and mutation was ordered to be liable to be corrected---Plaintiffs failed to bring on record death certificates of such persons, hence entitlement of paternal uncle's sons could not be decided at present stage---Judgments/decrees of Courts below were modified---Divergent revision petitions of both parties were disposed of accordingly.

NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Mst — 2023 MLD 1357 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD