Muhammad Bakhsh (deceased) vs Jiwan Hayat S — 2025 MLD 1795 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.

Muhammad Bakhsh (deceased) VS Jiwan Hayat S.42---Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), Ss.3 & 5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Inheritance dispute---Succession to estate of deceased by legal heirs of his brother, claim of---Core issue---Property devolved upon widow of deceased under prevailing custom---Reversion of estate to full owner upon death of widow---Effect---Brother of deceased claiming his share in inheritance of deceased---Entitlement and legality---Upon termination of limited estate of widow, property would revertto last full owner (deceased) and brother of deceased being alive at time ofdeath of deceasedwould entitle the legal heirs of deceased's brother to inherit his share---Whether brother of deceased survived/outlived the deceased---Factual controversy---Determination---Effect on succession rights, significance of---Challenge in the present case was regarding the determination of succession rights over agricultural land originally belonging to one "UB"---The case arose out of a dispute concerning inheritance of agricultural land originally owned by "UB", leaving behind his widow as a limited owner under prevailing custom---Upon widow's death, a mutation was sanctioned which excluded the legal heirs of "GM" who was "UB's" brother---The plaintiffs, being heirs of "GM", instituted a suit claiming entitlement to 95/576 share (5/24 of 19/24) in the suit property, asserting that "GM" survived "UB" and was therefore entitled to inherit his share---The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the basis of mutation entries suggesting "GM" predeceased "UB", but the appellate court reversed this decision, relying on prior admissions in earlier litigation---Therefore, the core issue before the High Court in the present civil revision was "whether the plaintiffs, being legal heirs of "GM", were legally entitled to a share in "UB's" estate upon the termination of the limited estate of widow of "UB"?"---Held: Main issue for determination was as to whether "UB" died in lifetime of "GM" and the trial court decided this issue against the respondent/plaintiffs by holding that in the inheritance mutation of "GM" (Exh.P-2)---In inheritance mutation (Exh.P-2) date of death of said "GM" was recorded as 02.01.1940---Mutation (Exh.P-3) was with regard to inheritance of "UB" which was sanctioned in favour of his widow, in column No.13 of said mutation, date of death of "UB" was written as 12.02.1941---Exh.P-2 was incorporated on 21.02.1941, whereas Exh.P-3 was incorporated on 22.02.1941---It meant that both the mutations were entered with a difference of one day---Both mutations were attested on the same day i.e. 19.03.1941---From perusal of both the mutations it appeared that the concerned Patwari entered the said mutations on the information provided by one of the relatives namely "H" andhe was not produced in the witness box---No other evidence was brought on record with regard to the date of death of "GM" and "UB"---Moreover, date of death mentioned in the mutations did not find corroboration through any other evidence---The entries in the mutation register by themselves were not conclusive evidence of the facts which they purported to record---Therefore, date of death mentioned in the said mutations entries had no evidentiary value---It was noted that with regards to inheritance of "GM" a suit for declaration was instituted on 22.03.1976---Witnesses in the said suit corroborated that "UB" had died prior to the death of "GM" and said suit was partially decreed and plaintiffs (defendants in the present suit) succeeded to get their share from legacy of "GM" on the ground that "GM" died after the death of "UB"---Plaintiffs of the said suit being defendants in the present suit were bound their plaint and were bound by the statement of PW-2 who represented all the plaintiffs of the said suit---After the death of widow of "UB" the property inherited to her was reverted to original full owner namely "UB"---It was evident that at the time of death of "UB" his brother "GM" was alive---So he was entitled to get his legal share from the legacy of his brother "UB"---But as at the time of opening of said succession he had died, hence his legal heirs were entitled to get same share as their predecessor "GM" was entitled---The lower appellate Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case reached to a just conclusion that the respondents/ plaintiffs were entitled to get their legal share as per their entitlement---No illegality, material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence and jurisdictional defect were found in the findings of the lower appellate court, hence, same did not call for interreference by the High Court under S.115 of C.P.C while exercising revisional jurisdiction---Present civil revision having no substance, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Bakhsh (deceased) vs Jiwan Hayat S — 2025 MLD 1795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD